Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
2.
Am J Crit Care ; 10(4): 216-29, 2001 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11432210

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the knowledge, beliefs, and ethical concerns of nurses caring for patients dying in intensive care units. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 3000 members of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. The survey contained various scenarios depicting end-of-life actions for patients: pain management, withholding or withdrawing life support, assisted suicide, and voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. RESULTS: Most of the respondents (N = 906) correctly identified the distinctions among the end-of-life actions depicted in the scenarios. Almost all (99%-100%) agreed with the actions of pain management and withholding or withdrawing life support. A total of 83% disagreed with assisted suicide, 95% disagreed with voluntary euthanasia, and 89% to 98% disagreed with nonvoluntary euthanasia. Most (78%) thought that dying patients frequently (31%) or sometimes (47%) received inadequate pain medicine, and almost all agreed with the double-effect principle. Communication between nurses and physicians was generally effective, but unit-level conferences that focused on grief counseling and debriefing staff rarely (38%) or never (49%) occurred. Among the respondents, 37% had been asked to assist in hastening a patient's death. Although 59% reported that they seldom acted against their consciences in caring for dying patients, 34% indicated that they sometimes had acted against their conscience, and 6% had done so to a great extent. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care unit nurses strongly support good pain management for dying patients and withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapies to allow unavoidable death. The vast majority oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia. Wider professional and public dialogue on end-of-life care in intensive care units is warranted.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Attitude to Death , Decision Making , Intensive Care Units/standards , Nursing Staff, Hospital/psychology , Terminal Care/standards , Adult , Clinical Competence , Ethics, Nursing , Euthanasia , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Palliative Care , Suicide, Assisted , Surveys and Questionnaires , Terminal Care/methods , United States
4.
West J Med ; 166(6): 381-8, 1997 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-9217449

ABSTRACT

In September 1996, the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics convened a conference entitled "Comprehensive Care of the Terminally Ill: The Northern California Consensus Development Conference for Guidelines on Aid-in-Dying." The regionally based, multidisciplinary conference gathered people from a variety of disciplines and diverse perspectives on physician aid-in-dying. This report documents important points of convergence, disagreement, and uncertainty that emerged from the conference and provides commentary on crucial issues: the definition of terminal illness, ensuring adequate palliative care, psychiatric challenges, coping with family pressures, the doctor-patient relationship, the managed care context, the role of ethics committees, and institutional challenges. Should physician aid-in-dying become a legal practice in California, the report will provide guidance to health care organizations, health professionals, and public policy officials engaged in local or state guideline or policy development.


Subject(s)
Consensus , Dissent and Disputes , Euthanasia , Group Processes , Suicide, Assisted , California , Consensus Development Conferences as Topic , Cultural Diversity , Ethics Committees, Clinical , Ethics Consultation , Ethics, Medical , Euthanasia/legislation & jurisprudence , Interdisciplinary Communication , Personal Autonomy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Stress, Psychological , Suicide, Assisted/legislation & jurisprudence , Terminal Care , Trust
7.
Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am ; 7(2): 297-304, 1995 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-7619372

ABSTRACT

Our culture highly values technology, and believes that technological solutions are the answer to most human problems. The role of nursing, however, is to hold foremost the overall well being of the patient and to advocate for the patient, not for the technology. This article discusses the technological imperative and its relationship to an ethical nursing practice.


Subject(s)
Critical Care , Ethics, Nursing , Medical Laboratory Science , Humans
8.
J Adv Nurs ; 21(2): 295-8, 1995 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-7714286

ABSTRACT

Nurses often institute artificial feeding for patients who would otherwise starve. Recently, the courts in the United States have favoured withholding or withdrawing feedings from patients who currently refuse or previously gave some indication they would refuse artificial nutrition and hydration. This paper investigates under what circumstances nurses feel justified in withholding artificial nutrition and hydration. Structured interviews were conducted with 40 cancer care nurses from two sites, and 40 dementia care nurses from two sites. The interviews were based on two vignettes, one involving an alert patient with terminal cancer, the other a patient suffering end-stage Alzheimer's dementia, and were analysed for themes coinciding with principles of deontological ethics. Investigators found that autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence most often guided nurses' decisions to withhold or implement artificial feeding.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Ethics, Nursing , Nutritional Support/psychology , Social Values , Withholding Treatment , Arizona , Beneficence , Bioethics , Dementia/nursing , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Neoplasms/nursing , Patient Rights , Personal Autonomy , Principle-Based Ethics , San Francisco , Stress, Psychological , Terminal Care , Value of Life
10.
Calif Nurse ; 89(1): 1, 6, 1993 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-8425162
12.
J Med Philos ; 17(1): 97-117, 1992 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-1545187

ABSTRACT

The Oregon Basic Health Services Act of 1989 seeks to establish universal access to basic medical care for all currently uninsured Oregon residents. To control the increasing cost of medical care, the Oregon plan will restrict funding according to a priority list of medical interventions. The basic level of medical care provided to residents with incomes below the federal poverty line will vary according to the funds made available by the Oregon legislature. A rationing plan such as Oregon's which potentially excludes medically necessary procedures from the basic level of health care may be just, for the right to publically-sponsored medical care is restricted by opposing rights of private property. However, the moral acceptability of the Oregon plan cannot be determined in the absence of knowing the level of resources to be provided. Finally, Oregon to date has failed to include the individuals being rationed in discussions as to how the scarce resources are to be distributed.


Subject(s)
Health Care Rationing/standards , Medicaid/organization & administration , Morals , Resource Allocation , Social Justice , State Health Plans/standards , Adult , Child , Female , Health Care Costs , Health Care Rationing/economics , Health Care Rationing/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Services Accessibility/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Male , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Medically Uninsured/legislation & jurisprudence , Oregon , Patient Selection , Social Values , State Health Plans/economics , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...