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.

End-of-life decisions: A retrospective study in a tertiary care teaching hospital in India

Background & objectives: In developing countries like India, there is a lack of clarity regarding the factors that influence decisions pertaining to life supports at the end-of-life (EOL). The objectives of this study were to assess the factors associated with EOL-care decisions in the Indian context and to raise awareness in this area of healthcare. Methods: This retrospectively study included all patients admitted to the medical unit of a tertiary care hospital in southern India, over one year and died. The baseline demographics, economic, physiological, sociological, prognostic and medical treatment-related factors were retrieved from the patient's medical records and analysed. Results: Of the 122 decedents included in the study whose characteristics were analyzed, 41 (33.6%) received full life support and 81 (66.4%) had withdrawal or withholding of some life support measure. Amongst those who had withdrawal or withholding of life support, 62 (76.5%) had some support withheld and in 19 (23.5%), it was withdrawn. The documentation of the disease process, prognosis and the mention of imminent death in the medical records was the single most important factor that was associated with the EOL decision (odds ratio - 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.74; P=0.03). Interpretation & conclusions: The documentation of poor prognosis was the only factor found to be associated with EOL care decisions in our study. Prospective, multicentric studies need to be done to evaluate the influence of various other factors on the EOL care.