Ethical challenges in resuscitation

Spyros D. Mentzelopoulos, Anne Marie Slowther, Zoe Fritz, Claudio Sandroni, Theodoros Xanthos, Clifton Callaway, Gavin D. Perkins, Craig Newgard, Eleni Ischaki, Robert Greif, Erwin Kompanje, Leo Bossaert

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Purpose: A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation. Methods: Following agreement on the article’s outline, subgroups of 2–3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered. Results: Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals’ education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased. Conclusions: Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)703-716
Number of pages14
JournalIntensive Care Medicine
Volume44
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Resuscitation
Beneficence
Social Justice
Ethics
Emergencies
Advance Care Planning
Research
Advance Directives
Professional Education
Bioethics
Resource Allocation
Patient Preference
Emergency Medical Services
Comorbidity
Consensus
Decision Making
Delivery of Health Care
Therapeutics
Population

Keywords

  • Beneficence
  • Personal autonomy
  • Resuscitation
  • Social justice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Slowther, A. M., Fritz, Z., Sandroni, C., Xanthos, T., Callaway, C., ... Bossaert, L. (2018). Ethical challenges in resuscitation. Intensive Care Medicine, 44(6), 703-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5202-0

Ethical challenges in resuscitation. / Mentzelopoulos, Spyros D.; Slowther, Anne Marie; Fritz, Zoe; Sandroni, Claudio; Xanthos, Theodoros; Callaway, Clifton; Perkins, Gavin D.; Newgard, Craig; Ischaki, Eleni; Greif, Robert; Kompanje, Erwin; Bossaert, Leo.

In: Intensive Care Medicine, Vol. 44, No. 6, 01.06.2018, p. 703-716.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Mentzelopoulos, SD, Slowther, AM, Fritz, Z, Sandroni, C, Xanthos, T, Callaway, C, Perkins, GD, Newgard, C, Ischaki, E, Greif, R, Kompanje, E & Bossaert, L 2018, 'Ethical challenges in resuscitation', Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 703-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5202-0
Mentzelopoulos SD, Slowther AM, Fritz Z, Sandroni C, Xanthos T, Callaway C et al. Ethical challenges in resuscitation. Intensive Care Medicine. 2018 Jun 1;44(6):703-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5202-0
Mentzelopoulos, Spyros D. ; Slowther, Anne Marie ; Fritz, Zoe ; Sandroni, Claudio ; Xanthos, Theodoros ; Callaway, Clifton ; Perkins, Gavin D. ; Newgard, Craig ; Ischaki, Eleni ; Greif, Robert ; Kompanje, Erwin ; Bossaert, Leo. / Ethical challenges in resuscitation. In: Intensive Care Medicine. 2018 ; Vol. 44, No. 6. pp. 703-716.
@article{4d8ae939baf4497aa98f6975936803b9,
title = "Ethical challenges in resuscitation",
abstract = "Purpose: A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation. Methods: Following agreement on the article’s outline, subgroups of 2–3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered. Results: Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals’ education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased. Conclusions: Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.",
keywords = "Beneficence, Personal autonomy, Resuscitation, Social justice",
author = "Mentzelopoulos, {Spyros D.} and Slowther, {Anne Marie} and Zoe Fritz and Claudio Sandroni and Theodoros Xanthos and Clifton Callaway and Perkins, {Gavin D.} and Craig Newgard and Eleni Ischaki and Robert Greif and Erwin Kompanje and Leo Bossaert",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00134-018-5202-0",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "703--716",
journal = "Intensive Care Medicine",
issn = "0342-4642",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical challenges in resuscitation

AU - Mentzelopoulos, Spyros D.

AU - Slowther, Anne Marie

AU - Fritz, Zoe

AU - Sandroni, Claudio

AU - Xanthos, Theodoros

AU - Callaway, Clifton

AU - Perkins, Gavin D.

AU - Newgard, Craig

AU - Ischaki, Eleni

AU - Greif, Robert

AU - Kompanje, Erwin

AU - Bossaert, Leo

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Purpose: A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation. Methods: Following agreement on the article’s outline, subgroups of 2–3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered. Results: Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals’ education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased. Conclusions: Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

AB - Purpose: A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation. Methods: Following agreement on the article’s outline, subgroups of 2–3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered. Results: Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals’ education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased. Conclusions: Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

KW - Beneficence

KW - Personal autonomy

KW - Resuscitation

KW - Social justice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046762560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046762560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00134-018-5202-0

DO - 10.1007/s00134-018-5202-0

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85046762560

VL - 44

SP - 703

EP - 716

JO - Intensive Care Medicine

JF - Intensive Care Medicine

SN - 0342-4642

IS - 6

ER -