A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.

Ethical analyses, professional guidelines and legal decisions support the equivalence thesis for life-sustaining treatment: if it is ethical to withhold treatment, it would be ethical to withdraw the same treatment. In this paper we explore reasons why the majority of medical professionals disagree...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wilkinson, D, Savulescu, J
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: 2014
_version_ 1826268385756839936
author Wilkinson, D
Savulescu, J
author_facet Wilkinson, D
Savulescu, J
author_sort Wilkinson, D
collection OXFORD
description Ethical analyses, professional guidelines and legal decisions support the equivalence thesis for life-sustaining treatment: if it is ethical to withhold treatment, it would be ethical to withdraw the same treatment. In this paper we explore reasons why the majority of medical professionals disagree with the conclusions of ethical analysis. Resource allocation is considered by clinicians to be a legitimate reason to withhold but not to withdraw intensive care treatment. We analyse five arguments in favour of non-equivalence, and find only relatively weak reasons to restrict rationing to withholding treatment. On the contrary, resource allocation provides a strong argument in favour of equivalence: non-equivalence causes preventable death in critically ill patients. We outline two proposals for increasing equivalence in practice: (1) reduction of the mortality threshold for treatment withdrawal, (2) time-limited trials of intensive care. These strategies would help to move practice towards more rational treatment limitation decisions.
first_indexed 2024-03-06T21:08:53Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:3d749f04-3d0e-4d2f-9840-ae9b5c94713d
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-06T21:08:53Z
publishDate 2014
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:3d749f04-3d0e-4d2f-9840-ae9b5c94713d2022-03-26T14:19:23ZA costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:3d749f04-3d0e-4d2f-9840-ae9b5c94713dEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2014Wilkinson, DSavulescu, JEthical analyses, professional guidelines and legal decisions support the equivalence thesis for life-sustaining treatment: if it is ethical to withhold treatment, it would be ethical to withdraw the same treatment. In this paper we explore reasons why the majority of medical professionals disagree with the conclusions of ethical analysis. Resource allocation is considered by clinicians to be a legitimate reason to withhold but not to withdraw intensive care treatment. We analyse five arguments in favour of non-equivalence, and find only relatively weak reasons to restrict rationing to withholding treatment. On the contrary, resource allocation provides a strong argument in favour of equivalence: non-equivalence causes preventable death in critically ill patients. We outline two proposals for increasing equivalence in practice: (1) reduction of the mortality threshold for treatment withdrawal, (2) time-limited trials of intensive care. These strategies would help to move practice towards more rational treatment limitation decisions.
spellingShingle Wilkinson, D
Savulescu, J
A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.
title A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.
title_full A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.
title_fullStr A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.
title_full_unstemmed A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.
title_short A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care.
title_sort costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care
work_keys_str_mv AT wilkinsond acostlyseparationbetweenwithdrawingandwithholdingtreatmentinintensivecare
AT savulescuj acostlyseparationbetweenwithdrawingandwithholdingtreatmentinintensivecare
AT wilkinsond costlyseparationbetweenwithdrawingandwithholdingtreatmentinintensivecare
AT savulescuj costlyseparationbetweenwithdrawingandwithholdingtreatmentinintensivecare