邮件订阅 RSS

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

撤除生命维持干预的伦理学辩护

张迪,  宁晓红

downloadPDF
文章导航 > 协和医学杂志  > 2023 >  14(5): 1116-1122
张迪, 宁晓红. 撤除生命维持干预的伦理学辩护[J]. 协和医学杂志, 2023, 14(5): 1116-1122. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0332
引用本文: 张迪, 宁晓红. 撤除生命维持干预的伦理学辩护[J]. 协和医学杂志, 2023, 14(5): 1116-1122. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0332
shu
ZHANG Di, NING Xiaohong. Ethical Arguments for Withdrawing Life-sustaining Medical Intervention[J]. Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital, 2023, 14(5): 1116-1122. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0332
Citation: ZHANG Di, NING Xiaohong. Ethical Arguments for Withdrawing Life-sustaining Medical Intervention[J]. Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital, 2023, 14(5): 1116-1122. doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0332
shu

撤除生命维持干预的伦理学辩护

doi: 10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0332
  • 1.

    中国医学科学院北京协和医学院人文和社会科学学院，北京 100730

  • 2.

    中国医学科学院北京协和医学院生命伦理学研究中心，北京 100730

  • 3.

    中国医学科学院北京协和医院老年医学科，北京 100730

基金项目: 

中国医学科学院北京协和医学院教学改革项目 2019zlgc0119

详细信息
    通讯作者:

    宁晓红, E-mail: ningxh1973@foxmail.com

  • 中图分类号: R-052;R48

Ethical Arguments for Withdrawing Life-sustaining Medical Intervention

  • 1.

    School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China

  • 2.

    Center for Bioethics, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China

  • 3.

    Department of Gerontology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China

Funds: 

Education Reform Projects of Chinese Academic of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College 2019zlgc0119

More Information

    摘要
  • 摘要: 撤除生命维持干预(life-sustaining medical intervention，LSMI)是临床实践中常见的伦理学问题。本文分别从尊重患者自主性、无效医疗和患者最佳利益三个方面，尝试对临床实践中撤除LSMI的伦理学可辩护性进行梳理和分析，并结合案例提出可操作性建议与对策。笔者认为符合下述任一条件时，撤除LSMI可获得伦理学辩护：(1)患者作出有效同意；(2)LSMI被判定为无效医疗；(3)撤除LSMI符合患者的最佳利益。最后，阐述临床实践中撤除LSMI所面临的挑战及可能的解决途径。
    Abstract: Decision to withdraw life-sustaining medical intervention(LSMI) is a common ethical issue in clinical practice. This paper reviews and analyzes the ethical arguments for withdrawing LSMI from three aspects: respect for autonomy, medical futility and patients' best interests. The authors argue that withdrawal of LSMI can be ethically justified when any of the following conditions is met: when patient gives valid consent, LSMI is judged to be medically futile, or it is in the patients' best interests. This paper proposes practical suggestions for the withdrawal of LSMI in clinical practice, and presents several policy suggestions. Finally, the authors identify several challenges of withdrawing LSMI in practice and possible approaches to addressing them.
    作者贡献：张迪负责文献检索、论文撰写及修订；宁晓红负责论文选题及修订。
    利益冲突：所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突
    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(26)
  • [1] Zhu Y, Zhu X, Xu L, et al. Clinical Factors Influencing End-of-Life Care in a Chinese Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective, post-hoc Study[J]. Front Pediatr, 2021, 9: 601782. doi:  10.3389/fped.2021.601782
    [2] Liu H, Su D, Guo X, et al. Withdrawal of treatment in a pediatric intensive care unit at a Children's Hospital in China: a 10-year retrospective study[J]. BMC Med Ethics, 2020, 21: 71. doi:  10.1186/s12910-020-00517-y
    [3] Baker J. A matter of life and death[J]. J Med Ethics, 2017, 43: 427-434. doi:  10.1136/medethics-2017-104256
    [4] Janofsky JS, Mccarthy RJ, Foistein MF. The Hopkins Competency Assessment Test: a brief method for evaluating patients' capacity to give informed consent[J]. Hosp Community Psychiatry, 1992, 43: 132-136.
    [5] Etchells E, Darzins P, Silberfeld M, et al. Assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment[J]. J Gen Intern Med, 1999, 14: 27-34. doi:  10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.00277.x
    [6] Tay M, Chia SE, Sng J. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of the Advance Medical Directive in a residential estate in Singapore[J]. Ann Acad Med Singap, 2010, 39: 424-428. doi:  10.47102/annals-acadmedsg.V39N6p424
    [7] Wiesing U, Jox RJ, Hessler H, et al. A new law on advance directives in Germany[J]. J Med Ethics, 2010, 36: 779-783. doi:  10.1136/jme.2010.036376
    [8] Wade D. Back to the bedside? Making clinical decisions in patients with prolonged unconsciousness[J]. J Med Ethics, 2017, 43: 457-458.
    [9] Menikoff JA, Sachs GA, Siegler M. Beyond Advance Directives--Health Care Surrogate Laws[J]. N Engl J Med, 1992, 327: 1165-1169. doi:  10.1056/NEJM199210153271612
    [10] Yang PC, Shih MJ, Liu YA, et al. Web Search Trends of Implementing the Patient Autonomy Act in Taiwan[J]. Healthcare (Basel), 2020, 8: 353.
    [11] Hospital Authority. Guidance for HA Clinicians on Advance Directives in Adults[R]. Hong Kong, China: Hospital Authority, 2016.
    [12] 贾平. 缓和医疗、徒劳争端及其法律规制[J]. 医学与哲学, 2021, 42: 1-5, 12.
    [13] Doty WD, Walker RM. Medical futility[J]. Clin Cardiol, 2000, 23: Ⅱ6-Ⅱ16. doi:  10.1002/clc.4960231404
    [14] Schneiderman LJ. Defining Medical Futility and Improving Medical Care[J]. J Bioeth Inq, 2011, 8: 123-131. doi:  10.1007/s11673-011-9293-3
    [15] Mohindra RK. Medical futility: a conceptual model[J]. J Med Ethics, 2007, 33: 71-75. doi:  10.1136/jme.2006.016121
    [16] Helft PR, Siegler M, Lantos J. The Rise and Fall of the Futility Movement[J]. N Engl J Med, 2000, 343: 293-296. doi:  10.1056/NEJM200007273430411
    [17] Brody BA, Halevy A. Is futility a futile concept?[J]. J Med Philos, 1995, 20: 123-144. doi:  10.1093/jmp/20.2.123
    [18] Aghabarary M, Dehghan Nayeri N. Medical futility and its challenges: a review study[J]. J Med Ethics Hist Med, 2016, 9: 11.
    [19] Clarke CM. Do parents or surrogates have the right to demand treatment deemed futile? An analysis of the case of Baby L[J]. J Adv Nurs, 2000, 32: 757-763.
    [20] Limerick MH. The process used by surrogate decision makers to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining measures in an intensive care environment[J]. Oncol Nurs Forum, 2007, 34: 331-339. doi:  10.1188/07.ONF.331-339
    [21] The British Psychological Society. Best Interests Guidance on determining the best interests of adults who lack the capacity to make a decision (or decisions) for themselves[R]. Leicester: The British Psychological Society, 2007: 7-10.
    [22] 薛晓艳, 朱继红. 临终患者不同救治态度的转归及影响因素分析[J]. 医学与哲学, 2011, 32: 27-28, 33. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YXZL201108013.htm
    [23] 王雪松, 杨新良, 刘玮. ICU不能回避的课题: 生命支持系统的撤除[J]. 医学与哲学, 2009, 30: 66-68. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YXZL200912028.htm
    [24] 王晓燕, 梁立智, 鲁杨, 等. 医患关系现状的医方因素及对策研究[J]. 中国医学伦理学, 2008, 21: 33-36. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XNLX200805016.htm
    [25] 李倩. "中断医疗型"安乐死在德国的刑法教义学考察[J]. 北方法学, 2017, 11: 61-71. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-BFFX201705007.htm
    [26] 鲍博. 论医生死亡协助在我国刑法中的正当化: 从比较法的视角[J]. 中国卫生法制, 2021, 29: 77-82. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WSFZ202101019.htm
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)
  • 加载中
WeChat 点击查看大图
计量
  • 文章访问数:  336
  • HTML全文浏览量:  87
  • PDF下载量:  66
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2022-06-15
  • 录用日期:  2022-08-30
  • 网络出版日期:  2022-09-23
  • 刊出日期:  2023-09-30

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回
    友情链接: 国家卫生健康委员会 北京协和医院 中国医学科学院 学术不端检测系统 国际知识资源总库 中国知网 术语在线 中国全科医学
    地址：北京市东城区帅府园1号 北京协和医院老楼7号楼
    3层302室 《协和医学杂志》编辑部
    电话：010-69154261/4262
    E - mail：medj@pumch.cn
    mjpumch@126.com
    期刊网站版权所有：《协和医学杂志》编辑部
    京ICP备 11002662

    本系统由 北京仁和汇智信息技术有限公司 开发    百度统计

    x 关闭 永久关闭

    【温馨提醒】近日，《协和医学杂志》编辑部接到作者反映，有多名不法人员冒充期刊编辑发送见刊通知，鼓动作者添加微信，从而骗取版面费的行为。特提醒您，本刊与作者联系的方式均为邮件通知或电话，稿件进度通知邮箱为：mjpumch@126.com，编辑部电话为：010-69154261，请提高警惕，谨防上当受骗！如有任何疑问，请致电编辑部核实。谢谢！