Cargando…

Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have advanced heart failure and experience severe symptoms (e. g., dyspnea) with minimal exertion or at rest despite optimal management. Although heart transplant is an effective treatment for advanced heart failure, the demand for organs far exceeds the supply. An...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Mueller, Paul S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9360408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35958394
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.897955
_version_ 1784764315507621888
author Mueller, Paul S.
author_facet Mueller, Paul S.
author_sort Mueller, Paul S.
collection PubMed
description Hundreds of thousands of Americans have advanced heart failure and experience severe symptoms (e. g., dyspnea) with minimal exertion or at rest despite optimal management. Although heart transplant is an effective treatment for advanced heart failure, the demand for organs far exceeds the supply. Another option for these patients is mechanical circulatory support (MCS) provided by devices such as the ventricular assist device and total artificial heart. MCS alleviates symptoms, prolongs life, and provides a “bridge to transplant” or a decision regarding future management such as “destination therapy,” in which the patient receives lifelong MCS. However, a patient receiving MCS, or his/her surrogate decision-maker, may conclude ongoing MCS is burdensome and no longer consistent with the patient's healthcare-related values, goals, and preferences and, as a result, request withdrawal of MCS. Likewise, the patient's clinician and care team may conclude ongoing MCS is medically ineffective and recommend its withdrawal. These scenarios raise ethical and legal concerns. In the U.S., it is ethically and legally permissible to carry out an informed patient's or surrogate's request to withdraw any treatment including life-sustaining treatment (LST) if the intent is to remove a treatment perceived by the patient as burdensome and not to terminate intentionally the patient's life. Under these circumstances, death that follows withdrawal of the LST is due to the underlying disease and not a form of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. In this article, frequently encountered ethical and legal concerns regarding requests to withdraw MCS are reviewed: the ethical and legal permissibility of withholding or withdrawing LSTs from patients who no longer want such treatments; what to do if the clinician concludes ongoing LST will not result in achieving clinical goals (i.e., medically ineffective); responding to requests to withdraw LST; the features of patients who undergo withdrawal of MCS; the rationale for advance care planning in patients being considered for, or receiving, MCS; and other related topics. Notably, this article reflects a U.S. perspective.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9360408
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93604082022-08-10 Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective Mueller, Paul S. Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine Hundreds of thousands of Americans have advanced heart failure and experience severe symptoms (e. g., dyspnea) with minimal exertion or at rest despite optimal management. Although heart transplant is an effective treatment for advanced heart failure, the demand for organs far exceeds the supply. Another option for these patients is mechanical circulatory support (MCS) provided by devices such as the ventricular assist device and total artificial heart. MCS alleviates symptoms, prolongs life, and provides a “bridge to transplant” or a decision regarding future management such as “destination therapy,” in which the patient receives lifelong MCS. However, a patient receiving MCS, or his/her surrogate decision-maker, may conclude ongoing MCS is burdensome and no longer consistent with the patient's healthcare-related values, goals, and preferences and, as a result, request withdrawal of MCS. Likewise, the patient's clinician and care team may conclude ongoing MCS is medically ineffective and recommend its withdrawal. These scenarios raise ethical and legal concerns. In the U.S., it is ethically and legally permissible to carry out an informed patient's or surrogate's request to withdraw any treatment including life-sustaining treatment (LST) if the intent is to remove a treatment perceived by the patient as burdensome and not to terminate intentionally the patient's life. Under these circumstances, death that follows withdrawal of the LST is due to the underlying disease and not a form of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. In this article, frequently encountered ethical and legal concerns regarding requests to withdraw MCS are reviewed: the ethical and legal permissibility of withholding or withdrawing LSTs from patients who no longer want such treatments; what to do if the clinician concludes ongoing LST will not result in achieving clinical goals (i.e., medically ineffective); responding to requests to withdraw LST; the features of patients who undergo withdrawal of MCS; the rationale for advance care planning in patients being considered for, or receiving, MCS; and other related topics. Notably, this article reflects a U.S. perspective. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9360408/ /pubmed/35958394 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.897955 Text en Copyright © 2022 Mueller. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Mueller, Paul S.
Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective
title Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective
title_full Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective
title_fullStr Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective
title_full_unstemmed Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective
title_short Ethical and Legal Concerns Associated With Withdrawing Mechanical Circulatory Support: A U.S. Perspective
title_sort ethical and legal concerns associated with withdrawing mechanical circulatory support: a u.s. perspective
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9360408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35958394
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.897955
work_keys_str_mv AT muellerpauls ethicalandlegalconcernsassociatedwithwithdrawingmechanicalcirculatorysupportausperspective