Fight or flight: the ethics of emergency physician disaster response.

Most disaster plans depend on using emergency physicians, nurses, emergency department support staff, and out-of-hospital personnel to maintain the health care system's front line during crises that involve personal risk to themselves or their families. Planners automatically assume that emergency health care workers will respond. However, we need to ask: Should they, and will they, work rather than flee? The answer involves basic moral and personal issues. This article identifies and examines the factors that influence health care workers' decisions in these situations. After reviewing physicians' response to past disasters and epidemics, we evaluate how much danger they actually faced. Next, we examine guidelines from medical professional organizations about physicians' duty to provide care despite personal risks, although we acknowledge that individuals will interpret and apply professional expectations and norms according to their own situation and values. The article goes on to articulate moral arguments for a duty to treat during disasters and social crises, as well as moral reasons that may limit or override such a duty. How fear influences behavior is examined, as are the institutional and social measures that can be taken to control fear and to encourage health professionals to provide treatment in crisis situations. Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of effective risk communication in enabling health care professionals and the public to make informed and defensible decisions during disasters. We conclude that the decision to stay or leave will ultimately depend on individuals' risk assessment and their value systems. Preparations for the next pandemic or disaster should include policies that encourage emergency physicians, who are inevitably among those at highest risk, to "stay and fight."

Quality of dying in the ICU: ratings by family members.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To explore the quality of the dying experience and associations to higher quality ratings for people who died in an ICU. DESIGN: Retrospective study using medical record review and surveys of family members with the Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) instrument. SETTING: Four ICUs affiliated with a university and a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-four family members of 38 ICU decedents. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We explored associations between components of the ICU experience and the overall rating of the quality of the dying experience. Overall, family members reported that symptoms were poorly controlled: pain under control most or all of the time in 47%, and breathing comfortably most or all of the time in 3% of patients. Families expressed a moderate and variable view of the quality of dying resulting in an overall ICU QODD score of 60 +/- 14 (on a scale of 0 to 100) [mean +/- SD]. Higher ICU QODD scores were associated with control of pain (r = 0.42, p = 0.009), control of events (r = 0.62, p < 0.001), a "preparation for death" aspect of the dying experience--feeling at peace with dying (r = 0.69, p < 0.001), and a "whole-person concern"--keeping one's dignity and self-respect (r = 0.50, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for symptom and personal care scores, certain whole-person and preparation-for-death aspects of the dying process, and not aggressiveness of end-of-life care, remained the most associated to quality ratings. While future research should explore the important predictors of quality of dying in the ICU, this study suggests that care at the end of life in the ICU include not only managing pain, but also supporting dignity, respect, and peace, and maximizing patient control.