La eutanasia, tendencias y opiniones en España / Euthanasia: trends and opinions in Spain

OBJETIVO: Conocer la evolución de la opinión pública y de los médicos sobre la eutanasia entre 1995 y 2019 y su influencia en el momento actual. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Análisis bibliográfico de publicaciones de mayor relevancia y calidad en plataformas de acceso abierto y de acceso académico. Revisión de los principales sondeos de instituciones públicas y privadas. Revisión de los diarios de sesiones del Congreso y el Senado. RESULTADOS: Encuestas recientes muestran al colectivo médico favorable a la regulación de la eutanasia, una posición que concuerda con lo que opina la población en general y que, de manera sostenida, ha ido creciendo su respaldo en las últimas décadas. DISCUSIÓN: El apoyo social y clínico a la regulación han sido elementos importantes. Una lectura que también ha sido realizada por los partidos políticos, que en las últimas dos décadas han ido virando sus posiciones, generando una ventana de oportunidad a la regulación

OBJECTIVE: Analyse the evolution of opinions about euthanasia by the general public and clinical physicians from 1995 to 2019 and their influence at the present time. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Bibliographical review based on relevance and quality of publications in open access and academic access platforms. Main surveys review of public and private institutions. Congress and Senate Official Journal Sessions. RESULTS: Recent surveys show that clinicians support the regulation of euthanasia. This position matches the general public's belief, which has grown steadily in recent decades. DISCUSSION: Social and clinical support for the regulation of euthanasia has been fundamental. In the last two decades political parties have changed their positions, thus creating a window of opportunity

[Euthanasia outside Europe]. / Eutanázia Európán kívül.

The passive form of euthanasia is legalized almost in every civilized country. Its active form is not a generally accepted legal institution. In Europe, active euthanasia is legalized only in The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. In Australia, the Act on the Rights of the Terminally Ill of 1995 legalized the institution of assisted suicide, which is not identical to active euthanasia. The difference lies in the fact that legalized active euthanasia means that the author of a murder is not punishable (under certain circumstances), whilst assisted suicide is not about murder, rather about suicide. In the first case, the patient is killed on his or her request by someone else. In the second case, the patient himself or herself executes the act of self-killing (by the assistance of a healthcare worker). In Australia, the institution of assisted suicide was repealed in 1997. Assisted suicide is legal in four USA member states: in Vermont, Washington, Montana and Oregon. In Uruguay, the active form of euthanasia has been legal since 1932.

To treat or not to treat: withholding treatment in the ICU.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Decisions to limit life-sustaining therapy (DLLST) in the ICU are used to uphold patients' autonomy, protect them from non-beneficial treatment and fairly distribute resources. The institution of these decisions is complex, with a variety of qualitative and quantitative data published. This review aims to summarize the main issues and review the contemporary research findings on this subject. RECENT FINDINGS: DLLST are used in a variety of clinical and non-clinical situations, before and after ICU admission, and are not always part of end-of-life management. There are many dilemmas and barriers that beset their institution. Many ICU physicians feel inadequately trained to carry them out and they are frequently a source of conflict. A variety of strategies have been examined to improve their institution, including advanced directives, intensive communication strategies and family information leaflets, many of which have improved patient and family-centred outcomes. SUMMARY: There are a number of uncertainties that beset the institution of DLLST in the ICU; however, a variety of research has improved our ability to understand and implement them. This review frames some of the dilemmas and discusses some of the procedural strategies that have been used to improve outcomes.

Evaluation of changes in forgoing life-sustaining treatment in Israeli ICU patients.

INTRODUCTION: Over the last several years, there have been legal decisions and changes in medical directives concerning end-of-life decisions in Israel. METHODS: The data were compared to evaluate the changes in the frequency and types of forgoing of life-sustaining treatment (FLST) in patients who were admitted to the ICU during period I (November 1994 to July 1995) and period II (January 1998 to January 1999). RESULTS: During period I, there were 385 ICU admissions, and during period II there were 627 ICU admissions. In period I, FLST or death occurred in 13.5% of patients, and in 12% in period II. There was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (9% vs 13%, respectively), withholding therapy (90% vs 91%, respectively), or withdrawing therapy (0% vs 0%, respectively) between the two study periods. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant change in the frequency or types of FLST in an Israeli ICU between 1994 and 1998, despite passage of a new Patients' Rights Law and the issuing of a Ministry of Health directive on the treatment of the terminally ill, both of which occurred in 1996, and recent district court decisions favoring the termination of life-sustaining therapies.

Ethical principles in end-of-life decisions in different European countries.

The majority of ICU deaths are preceded by a decision to limit treatment in some way. Decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment vary considerably depending on many factors including local practice, cultural and religious background, family and peer pressure. Here we will discuss the current situation across Europe, based on the findings from three large international studies.

French intensivists do not apply American recommendations regarding decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for making and implementing decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy in intensive care units have been developed in the United States, but the extent that they are realized in practice has yet to be measured. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, 4-wk study. For each patient with an implemented decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy, the deliberation and decision implementation procedures were recorded. SETTING: French intensive care units. PATIENTS: All consecutive patients admitted to 26 French intensive care units. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,009 patients admitted, 208 died in the intensive care unit. A decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy was implemented in 105 patients. The number of supportive treatments forgone was 2.3 +/- 1.7 per patient. Decisions to forgo sustaining therapy were preceded by 3.5 +/- 2.5 deliberation sessions. Proxies were informed of the deliberations in 62 (59.1%) cases but participated in only 18 (17.1%) decisions. The patient's perception of his or her quality of life was rarely evaluated (11.5%), and only rarely did the decision involve evaluating the patient's wishes (7.6%), the patient's religious values (7.6%), or the cost of treatment (7.6%). Factors most frequently evaluated were medical team advice (95.3%), predicted reversibility of acute disease (90.5%), underlying disease severity (83.9%), and the patient's quality of life as evaluated by caregivers (80.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapy was implemented for half the patients who died in the French intensive care units studied. In many cases, the decision was taken without regard for one or more factors identified as relevant in U.S. guidelines.

[Bioethics in the face of death]. / La bioética ante la muerte.

We review death, thanatology and bioethics concepts and precepts, the value scale and hierarchization; the changes in death vision according to culture, religion and hierarchy, changes in perception of, according to culture, religion and mores in different communities and times, as well with scientific and technological advances. We analyzed patient's reactions to death, and the reactions of people close to them. We describe and analyze the principal bioethical dilemmas associated with death: therapeutic overkill or dysthanasia, passive and active euthanasia, assisted suicide, orthothanasia, and organ transplants. We discuss the relationship between death and science, bioethics and thanatology, as a necessary discipline today.

The need to revise assumptions about the end of life: implications for social work practice.

During the 20th century the experience of dying changed dramatically. At the beginning of the 1900s, dying and death were integral parts of the life experience of most people at any age. Many deaths occurred at home following a short course of illness largely unaffected by the limited medical care available. At the beginning of the 21st century, in many cases, the process of dying has become invisible. Today, most deaths occur in old age. Social workers have a key role as "context interpreters" in helping people at the end of life and their families understand the natural course of the illness, the process of dying, and the advantages and drawbacks of medical interventions. An expanded role for social workers in helping people comprehend the medical and social contexts within which they face end-of-life decisions is discussed.

Increasing incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill.

To determine whether limits to life-sustaining care are becoming more common, we attempted to quantify the incidence of recommendations to withhold or withdraw life support from critically ill patients, to describe how patients respond to these recommendations, and to examine how conflicts over these recommendations are resolved. In 1992 and 1993 we prospectively enrolled 179 consecutive patients from two intensive care units (ICUs) for whom a recommendation was made to withhold or withdraw life support. Where possible, we compared results with data collected in the same units over a similar time period in 1987 and 1988. Recommendations to withhold or withdraw life support preceded 179 of 200 deaths (90%) in 1992 and 1993, compared with 114 of 224 deaths (51%) in 1987 and 1988 (chi2 = 73.76, p < 0.001]. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated in 10% of deaths in 1992 and 1993 as compared with 49% in 1987 and 1988. Ninety percent of patients agreed within less than 5 d, and only eight patients (4%) refused physicians' recommendations to limit life support. In cases of conflict, physicians in 1992 and 1993 deferred to patients with one exception: physicians were willing to refuse surrogate requests for resuscitation of patients they considered hopelessly ill. We conclude that 90% of patients who die in these ICUs now do so following a decision to limit therapy, that this represents a major change in practice in these institutions over a period of 5 yr, that most patients and surrogates accept an appropriate recommendation to withhold or withdraw life support, and that physicians will refuse surrogate requests in certain circumstances.