[Ethics in intensive medicine]

In more than 30 years of development of intensive care medicine (ICM), our specialty has acquired moral and ethical standpoints, although not without public pressure and discussions. Special commissions dealing, e.g., with brain death, terminal care, ethics of foregoing life-sustaining treatment in the critically ill, withholding or withdrawing mechanical ventilation, and other issues have been formed in a number of medical societies. International consensus conferences have helped to clarify some of the issues. With increasing experience, a multitude of ethical problems have arisen in ICM that have to be dealt with, such as the issue of quality of life. What is an unworthy life? Are we allowed to make judgments for our patients? What is cost-effectiveness in ICM? Other restrictions include bed and equipment shortages in the intensive care unit (ICU), the necessity for triage--undisputed in catastrophe medicine--and how one should proceed in managing elective patients? In situations of limited ICU bed availability, sicker patients will be admitted, sparing out patients who are less ill for observation and those with poor quality of life and poor prognosis. For the future, it will likely be necessary to define the patients who should be admitted to an ICU more than those who should not be admitted. An ICU treatment entitlement index would be directly proportional to the probability of successful outcome and the quality of the remaining life, and would be inversely related to costs for achieving success. The ICU outcome with survival, hospital mortality, and follow-up of ICU patients is considered. DNR (do not resuscitate), the dying patient, terminal care, terminal weaning--DNT (do not treat)--active and passive euthanasia, living wills, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness for ICU patients are defined. Their application in the ICU will be discussed and problems pointed out. Outcome predictions using scores (APACHE III, SAPS II, MPM) have been developed based on previous experience, but should only be applied to patient groups and for quality assurance in ICUs. The most frequent and difficult problem in the ICUs is the vegetative state, which requires an exact diagnosis. The differential diagnosis from other comatose states such as coma, brain death, and locked-in-syndrome is depicted. The ethics of interrupting life-sustaining treatment in critically ill patients have been worked out by a Task Force on Ethics of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (1990). A consensus was found that the patient may judge to forego therapy; ethically it is then appropriate to withhold or withdraw therapy. According to the consensus, withdrawing an already initiated treatment should not necessarily be regarded as more problematic than a decision not to initiate treatment. In my mind, however, there is a great difference between withdrawing or withholding, e.g., ventilation. A dissentive opinion by some members of the Task Force stated that hydration and nutrition other than high-technology or parenteral nutrition are key components of patient care, and should not be equated with medical intervention. The ethical problems associated with active euthanasia (physician-assisted suicide or death) as practised in the Netherlands are also discussed. In most countries this practice seems unacceptable. From 30 years experience in ICM, there are many more ethical questions and case reports without clear solutions. Care decisions for single patients in unacceptable situations should be made after medical evaluation by the intensivist with the medical team and, if possible, by the patient and/or his or her surrogate. Legislation and solutions cannot be expected for single patients, but ethics committees could be helpful in decision-making.