Suspensión de soporte vital en el estado vegetativo permanente y muerte digna / Withdrawal of life support in the permanent vegetative state, and a dignified death

Es frecuente que familiares directos soliciten la suspensión de soporte vital, en particular de la hidratación y nutrición asistidas, en pacientes con estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia permanente, y que recurran a la justicia en caso de desacuerdo. Dos casos recientes de suspensión, uno del exterior y otro argentino, autorizados por los tribunales respectivos, han sido motivo de controversia. Si bien puede parecer inhumano dejar de alimentar e hidratar, continuar haciéndolo solo prolonga un estado de supervivencia biológica irreversible. Las familias tienden a aceptar la suspensión si el paciente se mantiene sin cambios. Sin embargo, persiste preocupación por el posible sufrimiento desde la suspensión hasta la muerte, aunque el mismo es poco concebible en ausencia de función cortical y de conciencia. Si bien médicos y profanos consideran ético suspender el soporte vital, una cierta proporción de médicos considera que en el estado vegetativo, o más aún, en mínima conciencia, efectivamente se experimenta hambre, sed y dolor. En países como el Reino Unido, se han propuesto criterios de suspensión de soporte vital, y esquemas de tratamiento para el malestar durante el período de suspensión, aunque su beneficio efectivo es controvertido. La Argentina cuenta con recomendaciones de dos sociedades científicas, pero no con criterios reglamentados. Pero tanto la Ley 26.742 de "muerte digna" como el Código Civil consienten la suspensión del soporte vital en el estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia, si se acompaña de medidas de alivio de los síntomas clínicos que puedan significar sufrimiento.

Patient relatives often request withdrawal of life support, especially artificial nutrition and hydration, in cases of permanent vegetative or minimally conscious state, and resort to court in case of disagreement. Two recent cases of withdrawal authorized by the courts concerned, one from abroad and one from Argentina, have been controversial. Although it may appear inhuman to stop feeding and hydrating such patients, to continue it only prolongs a state of irreversible biological subsistence. Families tend to increasingly accept withdrawal if the patient status remains unchanged. However, concern persists regarding the suffering that patients may undergo from onset of withdrawal till death, even though such suffering is little conceivable in the absence of cortical function and conscience content. While doctors and the layman consider ethical to withdraw life support, a nonnegligible proportion of doctors consider that vegetative state patients, even more minimally conscious state patients, do experience hunger, thirst and pain. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, strict withdrawal criteria were proposed, together with pharmacological treatment schemes for the distress arising during the withdrawal period, even though its benefit is controversial. In Argentina, two scientific societies have publicly advocated withdrawal, but not issued formal guidelines. In any case, both "dignified death" Law 26.742 and the Civil Code consent withdrawal of life support, if accompanied by appropriate relief of clinical symptoms indicating suffering.

Euthanasia revisited: The aruna shanbaug verdict.

Euthanasia and its procedure have long history of locking horns as a vexed issue with laws of countries across the world. Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his/her own body. It is unlawful to administer treatment to an adult who is conscious and of sound mind, without his consent. In patients with Permanently Vegetative State (PVS) and no hope of improvement, the distinction between refusing life saving medical treatment (passive euthanasia) and giving lethal medication is logical, rational, and well established. It is ultimately for the Court to decide, as parens patriae, as to what is in the best interest of the patient. An erroneous decision not to terminate results in maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient’s intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment, at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated.

Valoraciones morales de profesionales de la salud sobre el estatuto ontológico de la persona al final de la vida / Moral valuation of health professionals about he ontological statute of the pperson at the end of tee life / Valoação moral ddos profissionais da saúde sobre o etatuto ontológiico da pessoa no final da vida

El espacio de reflexión y debate que ofrece la Bioética debe ser aprovechado, fundamentalmente, en temas tan escabrosos como comprometedores con la existencialidad del hombre. Con el avance impetuoso de la ciencia y la tecnología, los límites entre la vida y la muerte se han dilatado, el contexto del espacio y el tiempo en que se desarrolla la muerte humana ha cambiado. Y no es que no se muera o que se muera mucho menos que en tiempos remotos, sino que los dilemas que se configuran alrededor de la muerte son otros. El poder resolutivo de las ciencias biomédicas hace que cada día nos encontremos ante eventos nunca antes pensados por el hombre por los que surgen estados ontológicos generan dudas sobre referentes éticos solidificados por el hombre. ¿Qué entender por persona? ¿Qué es la muerte? ¿Cómo asumirla? Todas son preguntas que marcan el hilo conductor de la reflexión para responder ante los conflictos de la existencialidad humana en los límites ahora movedizos de la vida.

The opportunity of reflection and debate that offers Bioethics must be well-planned, essentially in crude issues as compromising with the existence of the man. With the impetuous advance of science and the technology the limits between the life and the death have dilated, the context space time in which the human death is developed has changed, is not that it does not die or that dies much less that in remote times, but the dilemmas that are formed around the death are others. The decisive power of biomedical sciences causes that every day we are before events never thought before by the man, arise ontological states that put in crisis and doubt ethical episteme solidified by the man.

E necessário explorar o espaço de reflexão e debate que oferece a bioética, sobretudo em áreas tão delicadas, relacionadas com a existência humana. Com o rápido avanço da ciência e da tecnologia, têm-se ampliados os limites entre a vida e a morte, mudou o contexto espaço-tempo em que se desenvolve a morte humana. Não é que ninguém morra nem menos pessoas morram hoje do que outros tempos, mas são diferentes os dilemas em torno da morte. O poder de resolução das ciências biomédicas permite que ocorram eventos diários jamais concebidos pelo homem; surgem estados ontológicos que põem em crise e questionam alguns epistemes éticos petrificados pelo homem.