Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

End of Life Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Ethics

Abstract

Providing excellent surgical care for patients at the end of life can present many ethical dilemmas. In this chapter many of the most commonly encountered ethical dilemmas encountered by surgeons during to end of life care are examined, organized around a fitting ethical principle. Tools that surgeons can use to help with avoiding unduly influencing preference construction, making decisions to withdraw life support, and attempting to prognosticate outcome in complex situations with incomplete information are discussed. The theme of improved multidisciplinary communication with patients and their families runs through the practical application of beneficence, non-maleficence, respect for autonomy, justice, and fidelity in these settings. Through working to understand who our patients are, discover what they value, and mitigate gaps in medical knowledge, we can provide ethical, high-quality end of life care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Gawande A. Being mortal: medicine and what matters in the end. 1st ed. New York: Metropolitan Books: Henry Holt & Company; 2014. 282 p.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pawlik TM, Curley SA. Ethical issues in surgical palliative care: am I killing the patient by “letting him go”? Surg Clin North Am. 2005;85(2):273–86.. vii

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sadler E, Hales B, Henry B, Xiong W, Myers J, Wynnychuk L, et al. Factors affecting family satisfaction with inpatient end-of-life care. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e110860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hamel RP, Walter JJ. Artificial nutrition and hydration and the permanently unconscious patient: the Catholic debate. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press; 2007. ix, 294 p.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kelly G. The duty to preserve life. Theol Stud. 1950;11:203–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Rourke KD. Artificial nutrition and hydration and the Catholic tradition. The Terri Schiavo case had even members of congress debating the issue. Health Prog. 2007;88(3):50–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sulmasy DP. Terri Schiavo and the Roman Catholic tradition of forgoing extraordinary means of care. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33(2):359–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McDermott A. Championing mistakes: reclaiming the safe learning environment for family-centered bedside rounds. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(2):257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ingram TC, Kamat P, Coopersmith CM, Vats A. Intensivist perceptions of family-centered rounds and its impact on physician comfort, staff involvement, teaching, and efficiency. J Crit Care. 2014;29(6):915–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schenker Y, Dew MA, Reynolds CF, Arnold RM, Tiver GA, Barnato AE. Development of a post-intensive care unit storytelling intervention for surrogates involved in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13(3):451–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Silverman E. Sharing and healing through storytelling in medicine. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barnato AE, Herndon MB, Anthony DL, Gallagher PM, Skinner JS, Bynum JP, et al. Are regional variations in end-of-life care intensity explained by patient preferences?: a study of the US Medicare population. Med Care. 2007;45(5):386–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barnato AE. Challenges in understanding and respecting patients’ preferences. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1252–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cooper Z, Courtwright A, Karlage A, Gawande A, Block S. Pitfalls in communication that lead to nonbeneficial emergency surgery in elderly patients with serious illness: description of the problem and elements of a solution. Ann Surg. 2014;260(6):949–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Crippen D. Moral distress in medicine: powerlessness by any other name. J Crit Care. 2016;31(1):271–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Aultman JM. Ethics of translation: MOLST and electronic advance directives. Am J Bioeth. 2010;10(4):30–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma RK, Dy SM. Cross-cultural communication and use of the family meeting in palliative care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2011;28(6):437–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kon AA, Shepard EK, Sederstrom NO, Swoboda SM, Marshall MF, Birriel B, et al. Defining futile and potentially inappropriate interventions: a policy statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(9):1769–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Swetz KM, Burkle CM, Berge KH, Lanier WL. Ten common questions (and their answers) on medical futility. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(7):943–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yadav KN, Gabler NB, Cooney E, Kent S, Kim J, Herbst N, et al. Approximately one in three US adults completes any type of advance directive for end-of-life care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1244–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cooper Z, Mitchell SL, Gorges RJ, Rosenthal RA, Lipsitz SR, Kelley AS. Predictors of mortality up to 1 year after emergency major abdominal surgery in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(12):2572–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Shif Y, Doshi P, Almoosa KF. What CPR means to surrogate decision makers of ICU patients. Resuscitation. 2015;90:73–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Chevret S, Adrie C, Annane D, Bleichner G, et al. Half the family members of intensive care unit patients do not want to share in the decision-making process: a study in 78 French intensive care units. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(9):1832–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sullivan DR, Liu X, Corwin DS, Verceles AC, McCurdy MT, Pate DA, et al. Learned helplessness among families and surrogate decision-makers of patients admitted to medical, surgical, and trauma ICUs. Chest. 2012;142(6):1440–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ornstein KA, Kelley AS, Bollens-Lund E, Wolff JL. A national profile of end-of-life caregiving in the United States. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1184–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ladin K, Buttafarro K, Hahn E, Koch-Weser S, Weiner DE. “End-of-life care? I’m not going to worry about that yet.” Health literacy gaps and end-of-life planning among elderly dialysis patients. Gerontologist. 58(2):290-299, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Thompson R. Shared decision-making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford University Press; 2016. xxi, 309 p.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor LJ, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, Tucholka JL, Brasel KJ, Johnson SK, et al. A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions: best case/worst case. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):531–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Belkora J, Davison BJ, Durand MA, Eden KB, et al. Coaching and guidance with patient decision aids: a review of theoretical and empirical evidence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gillon R. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ. 1994;309(6948):184–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pecoud A, Cornuz J. Reflexion of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences on the professional profile of physicians: some thoughts to remember. Rev Med Suisse. 2008;4(181):2555–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. London DM. Rationing gets official seal of approval from UK Health. Lancet. 2000;355(9197):49.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Drummond M, Mason A. Rationing new medicines in the UK. BMJ. 2009;338:a3182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chin MH. Movement advocacy, personal relationships, and ending health care disparities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2017;109(1):33–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chinn PL. Commentary: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender health: disparities we can change. Nurse Educ. 2013;38(3):94–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Iezzoni LI. Why increasing numbers of physicians with disability could improve care for patients with disability. AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):1041–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Koss CS, Baker TA. Race differences in advance directive completion. J Aging Health. 2017;29(2):324–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Barnato AE, Chang CC, Saynina O, Garber AM. Influence of race on inpatient treatment intensity at the end of life. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(3):338–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ornstein KA, Aldridge MD, Mair CA, Gorges R, Siu AL, Kelley AS. Spousal characteristics and older adults’ hospice use: understanding disparities in end-of-life care. J Palliat Med. 2016;19(5):509–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Palin S. 2009. Available from: https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/statement-on-the-current-health-care-debate/113851103434/.

  41. Oczkowski SJ, Chung HO, Hanvey L, Mbuagbaw L, You JJ. Communication tools for end-of-life decision-making in ambulatory care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0150671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Slipka AF, Monsen KA. Toward improving quality of end-of-life care: encoding clinical guidelines and standing orders using the Omaha system. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs 2017. Gerontologist. 58(2):290-299, 2018

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nadin S, Miandad MA, Kelley ML, Marcella J, Heyland DK. Measuring family members’ satisfaction with end-of-life care in long-term care: adaptation of the CANHELP lite questionnaire. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4621592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dalal S, Bruera E. End-of-life care matters: palliative cancer care results in better care and lower costs. Oncologist. 2017;22(4):361–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Moss DK. Getting it right at the end of life. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1336–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Suggested Literature and Resources

  • Back A, Arnold RM, Tulsky JA. Mastering communication with seriously ill patients: balancing honesty with empathy and hope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gawande A. Being mortal: medicine and what matters in the end. 1st ed. New York: Metropolitan Books: Henry Holt & Company; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • https://www.mypcnow.org/copy-of-core-curriculum

  • Mosenthal AC, Murphy PA, Barker LK, Lavery R, Retano A, Livingston DH. Changing the culture around end-of-life care in the trauma intensive care unit. J Trauma. 2008;64(6):1587–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor LJ, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, Tucholka JL, Brasel KJ, Johnson SK, et al. A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions: best case/worst case. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):531–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winakur J. Conundrums at the end of life. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(7):1343–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Karen Brasel & Mary Condron

Authors
  1. Karen Brasel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mary Condron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Brasel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Alberto R. Ferreres

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brasel, K., Condron, M. (2019). End of Life Issues. In: Ferreres, A. (eds) Surgical Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_22

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_22

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05963-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05964-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation