Allocating medical resources fairly: the CSG bioethics guide / Asignación justa de recursos médicos: guía bioética del CSG

Abstract On April 12, 2020, a bioethics guide for allocating scarce hospital resources during the current Covid-19 pandemic was posted on the website of the Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) of the Government of Mexico. The guide, entitled Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia, was intended as a preliminary document, but the website posting did not describe it as a first step in the process. The publicity resulted in a wide array of comments and criticisms. That first version posted on the CSG website contained an age-based criterion for breaking a tie between two or more medically eligible patients who needed of a ventilator: younger patients would have preference over older ones. The final version of the guide eliminated that criterion and instead, relied on the leading public health principle, "save the most lives", without regard to personal characteristics other than the possibility of benefitting from the scarce medical resources.

Resumen El 12 de abril de 2020, se publicó en el sitio web del Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) del Gobierno de México una guía de bioética para asignar recursos hospitalarios escasos durante la actual pandemia de Covid-19. La guía titulada Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia pretendía ser un documento preliminar, pero la publicación en el sitio web no lo describió como un primer paso en el proceso. La publicación resultó en una amplia gama de comentarios y críticas. La primera versión publicada en el sitio web del CSG contenía un criterio basado en la edad para romper el empate entre dos o más pacientes médicamente elegibles que necesitaran un ventilador: los pacientes más jóvenes tendrían preferencia sobre los de mayor edad. La versión final de la guía eliminó ese criterio y, en cambio, se basó en el principio principal de salud pública, "salvar la mayoría de las vidas", sin tener en cuenta las características personales que no sean la posibilidad de beneficiarse de los escasos recursos médicos.

Guía bioética de asignación de recursos de medicina crítica del Consejo de Salubridad General en México / Bioethics guide on scarce medical resource allocation in Mexico

Resumen El tema bioético sobre la asignación de recursos escasos no es nuevo, todos los países que han sido gravemente afectados por el SARS-CoV-2 han tenido que desarrollar y utilizar guías de triaje. Esto resulta más adecuado pues así la asignación de recursos limitados se hace de manera ética y justa, y no de manera discrecional y abierta a la corrupción. En México, en anticipación a la fase exponencial de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, el 30 de abril el Consejo de Salubridad General publicó la Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia. Dicha guía tiene como base criterios de justicia social y parte de la tesis: todas las vidas tienen el mismo valor. Este texto tiene como objetivo proporcionar las razones bioéticas y biojurídicas que conforman esta guía de triaje en nuestro país. En resumen, proporciona una breve exploración de las razones éticas que justifican cierta manera específica de asignar recursos escasos en medicina crítica, así como del sustento procedimental apegado a los estándares en materia de derechos humanos.

Abstract The bioethical inquiry about allocating fairly scarce health resources is not new, all countries around the world that were seriously afflicted by SARS-CoV-2 have issued triage guidelines in order to address the dilemmas raised by the pandemic. There is no question about the need to create bioethical guidelines, since its creation provides a degree of certainty that fair and ethical decisions are taken. This also prevents that decisions are made in solitary and maybe motivated by corrupted actions. In Mexico, the creation of this guideline was a proactive and preventive measure to what was unavoidable, the exponential contagion phase of the pandemical scenario caused by Covid-19. On April 30, 2020 the General Sanitary Council published the Bioethical Guide to Allocate Scarce Resources on Critical Care Medicine in Emergency Situation. This guide has at its core that principle of utmost importance in social justice which main thesis is: "All lives have the same value". The aim of this contribution is to provide the ethical and legal principles established in the aforementioned bioethical guideline. In sum, a brief exploration of the ethical reasons that support a specific way to allocate scarce health resources is provided, as well as the foundations of the procedural part from a human rights-based approach.

Do-not-resuscitate and treatment limitation decisions - Six years of experience from a Portuguese General Intensive Care Unit

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE Treatment limitation, as well as do-not-resuscitate (DNR) directives, are difficult but important to improve patients' quality of life and minimize dysthanasia. We aimed to study the approach to withholding, withdrawal, and DNR decisions, patients' characteristics, and process documentation in a general Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in Portugal. METHODS A retrospective analysis of data regarding the limitation of treatment decisions collected from previously-designed forms and complemented by medical record consultation. RESULTS A total of 1602 patients were admitted to the ICU between 2011 and 2016. DNR decisions were documented in 127 cases (7.9%). Patients with treatment limitations were older and had higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II. The most frequent diagnosis preceding these decisions was sepsis (52.0%, n = 66); the most common main reason for limiting treatment was a poor prognosis of acute illness. Of the patients to whom a DNR was implemented, 117 (92.1%) died in the ICU (40.1% of the total number of ICU deaths), and hospital mortality was 100%. Participants in these decisions, as well as types of treatment withdrawn and their respective timings, were not registered in medical records. CONCLUSION Treatment limitation and DNR decisions were relatively common, in line with other Southern European studies, but behind Northern European and North American centers. Patients with these limitations were older and more severely ill than patients without such decisions. Documentation of these processes should be clear and detailed, either in specific forms or computerized clinical records; there is room for improvement in this area.

RESUMO OBJETIVO Decisões de limitação terapêutica (DLT) e de não reanimação (DNR) são difíceis, mas importantes, visando melhorar a qualidade de vida dos doentes e minimizar distanásia. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a abordagem das DNR e DLT, as características dos doentes e a documentação dessas decisões numa Unidade de Cuidados Intensivos Polivalente (Ucip) em Portugal. MÉTODOS Análise retrospectiva dos dados referentes a DLT e DNR, recolhidos a partir de formulários previamente elaborados e complementados por consulta de processo clínico. RESULTADOS Um total de 1.602 doentes foi internado na Ucip entre 2011 e 2016. DNR foi documentada em 127 casos (7,9%). Doentes com DLT eram mais velhos e tinham um Simplified Acute Physiology Score II mais elevado. O diagnóstico mais frequente que precedeu essas decisões foi sepse (52,0%, n=66); A razão mais comum para limitar o tratamento foi mau prognóstico da doença aguda. Dos doentes nos quais a DNR foi implementada, 117 (92,1%) morreram na Ucip (40,1% do total de óbitos na Ucip) e a mortalidade hospitalar foi de 100%. Os intervenientes nessas decisões, bem como os tipos de tratamento retirados, não foram rotineiramente registrados. CONCLUSÃO As DLT e DNR foram relativamente comuns, em consonância com outros estudos do sul da Europa, mas atrás dos centros do norte da Europa e da América do Norte. Os doentes com essas limitações eram mais velhos e mais gravemente doentes. A documentação dessas decisões deve ser clara e detalhada, seja em formulários específicos, seja em registros clínicos informatizados. Há espaço para melhorias nessa área.

End of life in the neonatal intensive care unit

PURPOSE: Death at the beginning of life is tragic but not uncommon in neonatal intensive care units. In Portugal, few studies have examined the circumstances surrounding the final moments of neonates. We evaluated the care given to neonates and their families in terminal situations and the changes that had occurred one decade later. DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed 256 charts in a retrospective chart review of neonatal deaths between two periods (1992-1995 and 2002-2005) in a level III neonatal intensive care unit. RESULTS: Our results show differences in the care of dying infants between the two periods. The analysis of the 2002-2005 cohort four years revealed more withholding and withdrawing of therapeutic activities and more effective pain and distress relief; however, on the final day of life, 95.7 percent of the infants received invasive ventilatory support, 76.3 percent received antibiotics, 58.1 percent received inotropics, and 25.8 percent received no opioid or sedative administration. The 2002-2005 cohort had more spiritual advisor solicitation, a higher number of relatives with permission to freely visit and more clinical meetings with neonatologists. Interventions by parents, healthcare providers and ethics committees during decision-making were not documented in any of the charts. Only eight written orders regarding therapeutic limitations and the adoption of palliative care were documented; seven (87.5 percent) were from the 2002-2005 cohort. Parental presence during death was more frequent in the latter four years (2002-2005 cohort), but only 21.5 percent of the parents wanted to be present at that moment. CONCLUSION: Despite an increase in the withholding and withdrawing of therapeutic activities and improvements in pain management and family support, many neonates still receive curative and aggressive practices at the end of life.