Archive for the ‘Living Will’ Category

Week in Review: (June 13 – June 17, 2001) Eye Opener Health, Law and Medicine Blog

Saturday, June 18th, 2011

Eye  Opener’s Week in Review

 

Jason Penn

From the Editor:  Today marks the end of week two as “guest” editor for the Eye Opener. I can tell you that the title “editor” is a misnomer. When it comes to the Eye Opener and its panel of bloggers, very little (if any) editing takes place. Consistently, our blawgers provide you with timely and topical posts. This week was no different. Let’s take a retrospective look at what the “Eye Opener” offered this week (and, of course, a sneak peek at the week ahead.)

– Jason Penn, Guest Editor

 

(Many thanks to Jason and all those back at the firm, who helped get the word out on some great topics this past week while I’ve been wrapping-up week #2 of the trial from hell…….Brian Nash)

July 1 – New Residents, New Rules……Again!

By: Theresa Neumann

While the loss of sleep is rarely a topic on Gray’s Anatomy (or any made-for-television medical drama), it is a genuine quandary for non-actor, medical residents. This past Monday, Theresa Neumann explored the ACGME’s limitations on the hours worked by medical residents in the United States. As Theresa explained, the overall maximum hours per week will not change; it remains at 80 hours.  One big change is the limit on the maximum continuous duty period for first year residents; this will be decreased from 24 to 16 hours.  It will remain 24 hours for residents after their first year, but recommendations include “strategic napping.” Curious about the other changes?  Read more

Newest Word on Crib Safety: Ban the Bumpers?

By: Sarah Keogh

Sleep isn’t only important for medical residents; it is also important for the smallest members of our families. As Sara Keogh explained on Tuesday, Maryland is considering regulations to ban the sale of crib bumpers. For many years, more and more emphasis has been placed on infants sleeping in safe cribs without any additional “stuff” in them. This has included the elimination of lots of former nursery staples. Baby blankets, stuffed animals, pillows and other loose items have been banned from the crib by safety experts for years. As requirements for cribs have required slats that are closer together, the utility of using a bumper to help a child from getting stuck between crib slats has been eliminated. More recently, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has developed even newer crib safety standards, including eliminating the use of drop-sides, and warned against the use of sleep positioners. Yet, despite the advice to put babies to sleep only on their backs in cribs empty of everything except a well fitting mattress and fitted sheet, many parents and caregivers persist in using other items in cribs. Now, with an increasing number of deaths associated with crib bumpers, Maryland is considering a stronger stance. Read more

Legal Boot Camp Class Four. Sean and Kristy’s Story: How a Jury Award is Conformed to the Cap

By: John Stefanuca

On Wednesday blogger Jon Stefanuca broke out his calculator:  bootcamp style.  In the state of Maryland, there is a cap on the damages that can be awarded.  But what happens when a jury returns a verdict in excess of the statutory amount?  Mathematics and law intersect.

To see the results, and a detailed explanation of how it all works, you can read more ….

 

Confusion with Advanced Directives: Palliative Care, End-of-Life and Hospice Care

By: Theresa Neumann

With the death of the always controversial Jack Kevorkian, we revisited a post by Theresa Neumann.  Breathing a little life into the post (pun intended), Theresa provides an excellent primer for readers that are facing end of life situations.  The differences are nuanced and can be difficult to understand at a most difficult time. Are you sure you know the difference between palliative, end-of-life and hospice care?  Read more

Acquired Brain Injuries: Subdural Hematomas

By: Theresa Neumann

When Humpty Dumpty fell, they were able to put him back together again.  Because our lives are nothing like a children’s nursery rhyme, when we fall, we get hurt.  A head injury is particularly serious. Have you ever bumped your head and developed a “goose-egg?” It’s truly amazing how fast that big bruise under the skin grows. That bruise, or hematoma, is from a broken blood vessel, usually a vein. The pressure from the swelling helps with clotting, along with the blood’s own clotting factors. This types of hematoma typically takes a week or more to go away. If it’s on the forehead, it’s often followed by one or two “black eyes.”  That’s because the blood tends to spread along  tissue planes, and gravity notoriously pulls everything downward causing it to pool in the eye sockets, where the blood cells degrade and their components are reabsorbed by the body. Unlike a fairy tale, however, this goose-egg can be serious.  Read more

Sneak Peak of the Week Ahead:

As I told you at the beginning, the Eye Opener’s writers continue in their efforts to provide you with timely and topical blogs for your reading pleasure. As evidenced by the above, this past week was no exception. The Eye Opener and its writers are excited about the week ahead too!  Here’s a sneak peak of what’s in store for you:

  • Service dogs for children:  more than just a pet
  • Changes in Sunscreen:  will regulation prevent cancer?
  • HIV Patients:  Increased risk for developing cancer
  • Legal Boot Camp is back in session and Part III of our Cerebral Palsy tutorial.

Wishing You and Yours a Great Week Ahead!

Images courtesy of:

www.theepochtiems.com

www.sleepzine.com

www.nailsmag.com

www.aginglongevity

 

 


Confusion with Advanced Directives: Palliative Care, End-of-Life and Hospice Care

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

From the Editor:  Today, with the recent death of controversial figure Jack Kevorkian we revisit blogger Theresa Neumann’s thoughts on Palliative Care, End of Life and Hospice Care.  The ethical questions raised by end of life situations are difficult for families to deal with and this blog provides an excellent primer.

In a previous blog, I raised the issue of “Advanced Directives” and how, according to a Medscape physician survey, physicians do not always honor these legal documents.  One of the “excuses” cited the definition of futility in treating a terminal medical condition, arguing for palliative care as opposed to withdrawal of care.  Obviously, confusion exists amongst these providers as to what constitutes comfort care versus unnecessary prolongation of life and/or exposure to unnecessary procedures in a patient with a terminal condition.

Palliative, End-of-Life and Hospice Care

Palliative care is essentially comfort care.  To “palliate” means to “ease” or “make less severe” – therefore, medical care that is designed to palliate symptoms of a particular disease is care designed to ease or lessen the severity of symptoms associated with that disease.  It can be in an acute condition, a chronic condition or even a terminal condition depending on the stage of the illness.  Some of the symptoms often palliated are nausea and vomiting (chemotherapy, cirrhosis), anorexia (cancers, AIDS), pain (rheumatoid arthritis, cancers), shortness of breath (COPD/emphysema, interstitial lung disease), dizziness (Meniere’s disease, multiple sclerosis), incontinence (spinal cord injuries, stroke), constipation (inflammatory bowel disease, chronic pain syndromes), and many others.  There are various treatments available for the treatment and/or management of these symptoms, but they are not necessarily curative of the underlying condition.  Some chronic conditions, like Rheumatoid Arthritis, are manageable but not necessarily curable, so the treatment rendered is to palliate/lessen the symptoms and hopefully put the auto-immune disorder into remission for a period of time.  Rheumatoid Arthritis, however, is NOTterminal condition; patients usually die of complications or other co-morbidities.  Palliative care can also incorporate a variety of specialties with overall coordination of care that involves communication with the family, spirituality and emotional support.  Palliative care is a critical component of end-of-life and Hospice care.

End-of-Life care is a well-coordinated approach to end-of-life issues when a condition is deemed terminal, such as incurable metastatic cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis or even liver cirrhosis when organ transplant is not an option.  Life expectancy can vary widely, with physician guestimates being greater than 6 months (as much as one year or more).  End-of-life care typically incorporates palliative care to ease the symptoms of the disease process as well as counseling services, emotional support and even spiritual support.

Hospice care is end-of-life care, incorporating palliative care, reserved for the last 6 months of life or less.  Care is shifted from curative therapies to pain management and ease of other symptoms of illness.  There are many Hospice programs that offer services in a variety of locations, all of which is dependent on the patient’s and the patients’ family’s wishes. They can be rendered at home, in a nursing home, in the hospital or in a dedicated Hospice facility.  Services provided by these organizations can even include basic housekeeping, personal hygiene care, grocery shopping, and even companionship in addition to the palliative medical therapies.

Where do advanced directives come into play?

Advanced directives can affect every one of these aspects of care.  They reflect the patient’s or the patient’s medical power of attorney’s wishes regarding palliative care modalities, end-of-life care and Hospice care.

About.com’s website on palliative care offers a great example of palliative care that transitions to end-of-life and at-home Hospice care for “Aunt Tilly”.

A patriarch of the family has essentially been healthy his entire life, shoveling  snow and cutting grass into his 85th year of life.  Things shift during the 86th year, and he develops congestive heart failure which has triggered multiple falls and syncopal episodes, presumably from hypoxemia.  There are several hospitalizations to evaluate his condition with institution of multiple medical therapies/drugs to stabilize his condition.  Unfortunately, his heart is weak, and ultimately his kidneys begin to fail.  No advanced directives had ever been discussed, as with many people of his generation; fortunately, he remained of sound mind.  At first, everything was a whirlwind……medication infusions to prevent irregular heart rhythms, blood transfusions to address his anemia since the kidneys were no longer working properly to stimulate the bone marrow to make more red blood cells, and finally, dialysis???  Well, if the kidneys are not working very well, not filtering the blood to produce urine and not stimulating the bone marrow to produce RBCs, we have to fix this, right?  What was not mentioned was that blood transfusions have to be given with intravenous fluids, which then worsen the fluid overload and congestive heart failure making it even more difficult for the poor man to breathe.  Higher and higher amounts of oxygen are needed to keep him comfortable, while his body is swelling up with fluids.  So, STOP THE MADNESS!  This family patriarch, after being informed of the complicated nature of his essentially end-stage condition, opted to forego hemodialysis; he did not want to be hooked-up to a machine for 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, just to filter his blood in an attempt to garner perhaps 6 more months of life; that kind of life had no quality to it in his mind.  In addition, since the blood transfusions would only worsen his breathing, he refused any more blood.  He wanted to be kept comfortable with pain medications and oxygen which was done in the hospital; he did not want to be shocked (defibrillated) or resuscitated in any way.  Comfort measures were provided in the hospital where he was given a large, private room, and he passed away peacefully within 3 days; there were no restrictions on family visitation, and he was surrounded by those dearest to him.  A chaplain was available within minutes of his death to comfort the family and offer prayer to ease everyone else’s suffering and loss; this patriarch was already at peace and without pain.

In this particular example, it was beneficial that my family member was of sound mind to make his own decisions at the end of life with regard to blood transfusions and hemodialysis.  It would have otherwise been very difficult for the family to come to some kind of consensus.  It was also better, in this case, that he remain in the hospital since his wife was still living and would have to return to their home alone following his death; having her live in the house in which her husband of 67 years had died would have been too much for her to bear.  This emphasizes the importance decision-making while one is of sound mind.  Cancers can spread to the brain; toxic metabolites that accumulate when vital organs fail can render a patient confused or even comatose; acute strokes can also affect one’s cognitive capabilities, not to mention other organ systems (breathing, toileting, swallowing, etc.).

Advanced directives can be as precise or as vague as one desires.  It seems to me that the more detailed the directive, the less chance one encounters of a physician or care provider ignoring the directive or “interpreting” the directive in a way that confuses loved ones, exposing the patient to unnecessary procedures and/or life-extending treatments.

Have you ever had to deal with any of these issues – advanced directives, palliative care, end-of-life care or hospice care? What has your experience been? Do you have any suggestions that might be helpful to others, who may be faced with similar issues?

More on this topic soon: What constitutes a terminal condition?

Related Posts:

Advanced Directives: The Right to Die With Dignity. Does the Medical Profession Honor Them?

Making Your Wishes Known at the End of Life (NY Times article by Dr. Pauline W. Chen )

Image from mylocalhealthguide.com


 

Advanced Directives: The Right to Die with Dignity. Does the Medical Profession Honor Them?

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

Anyone who has presented to a hospital with some type of ailment in the last 10 years or so has been asked about advanced directives, a living will and/ or medical power of attorney. What are these things?  What do they do?  Better yet, you may ask: what are they intended to do?

Advanced directives are legal documents prepared while an individual is of sound mind that indicates his or her wishes with regard to medical decisions to be made in the event that the same individual becomes incoherent, comatose, or unable to make decisions for themselves.

These directives are intended to instruct the care-providers with regard to various medical interventions should their condition warrant intervention. These can be as “simple” as resuscitation orders (being “coded,” “shocked,” being intubated and/or placed on a mechanical ventilator), or they can be more complex such as gastric feeding tubes if one cannot eat by mouth, dialysis should one’s kidneys fail (even temporarily), intravenous fluids or intravenous nutrition, blood transfusions, surgical procedures if the condition is deemed terminal, pacemaker/defibrillator placement, and many other form of possible medical intervention.  A living will is a form of advanced directive that is less precise, but it is a legal document indicating a patient’s wishes with regard to end-of-life or terminal-condition medical care without assigning a medical power of attorney. A medical power of attorney legally identifies an individual, who is intimately trusted by the patient to make appropriate decisions with regard to medical care in accordance with the patient’s wishes should the patient become incapable of making those decisions. The American Academy of Family Physicians offers good information with regard to these topics.

How well does the medical community deal with these issues?

This is all well and good from the patient’s perspective, but where do the physicians and other medical care providers fall in line with such legal documents and end-of-life ethical decision-making?  According to an electronic survey of 10,000 physicians in 2009 by Medscape on medical ethics, a physician’s personal bias and personal beliefs played a role in their approach to end-of-life care. A second article from Medscape dealt specifically with end-of-life issues.

When queried as to physicians recommending or administering life-sustaining therapy, when one judged it as futile (otherwise terminal condition), 23.6% of the respondants (~5,300) said “yes”; 37% said “no”; 39.4% stated that their decision was situational. The second end-of-life ethical dilemma involved whether the physician would withdraw life-sustaining care in accordance with family wishes even if the physician thought it was premature; the results showed that 54.5% would NOT withdraw care while 16.3% would withdraw care, leaving 29.2% deciding upon the actual situation. Let’s not overlook that astounding number – only 16.3% said they would follow the patient/family’s wish to withdraw care!

Various rationales were cited as to why these physician-respondents held such opinions. Some questioned the motives of the patient’s family members, while others noted fear of litigation for providing medical interventions.  The very definition of “futile” took on both curative and palliative connotations. The legitimacy of advanced directives were also questioned since these can become viewed as stagnant, especially if created 5 or 10 years earlier while the patient was in a different mindset. Keep in mind, people do change their mind, as do their perspectives with age, experience and wisdom. Likewise, advanced directives need to be changed, modified or simply updated periodically to reflect such changes.

The Terri Schiavo lesson (if there was one)

The Terri Schiavo story brought the whole end-of-life ethical decision-making into the limelight in 2005. This very sad story was in the headlines every day as legal maneuvering played out on national television. People were divided on “who was right,” and they will always be divided. These decisions are personal. They are difficult to share and discuss with family members, let alone physicians, who are admitting patients for the first time. In Maryland, physician assistants have been required to acquire continuing education hours in end-of-life care on a yearly basis for the last 10 years! This is a critical step in understanding the terminal stages of disease as well as the psychologic impact it can have on patients and their families.  Being comfortable with the discussion of death and dying, and doing so with dignity, is a key component in the management of end-of-life decision-making.

A Personal Experience

On a personal note, as a practicing physician’s assistant, I have been involved in end-of-life decisions with several family members as well as patients presenting to the ER in my 13-year Emergency Medicine career. The family members I have encountered have run the gamut from cancer-related deaths to brain hemorrhages to congestive heart failure leading to kidney failure.

One memorable, personal, family incident that sticks involved a relative, who had been living with a stroke, chronic lymphocytic leukemia followed by the development of large cell lymphoma. The two different courses of chemotherapy for the lymphoma resulted in damage to his heart, causing episodes of ventricular tachycardia (a life-threatening heart rhythm); however, the lymphoma had returned, and he couldn’t eat due to illness.  His options with regard to the cancer were extremely limited with an extremely poor prognosis, but the cardiologist wanted to insert a defibrillator in case the ventricular tachycardia re-occurred; the defibrillator would deliver an internal shock to the heart to return it to a normal rhythm and prevent death. Well, what is worse in this case – dying from a painless, silent heart dysrhythmia or suffering from malnutrition and systemic pain from the cancer that was everywhere in his body?  This situation required forcing both the oncologist and cardiologist to meet with my relative and with the our family to discuss each option and the prognosis. My relative decided he wanted to go home as soon as possible without the defibrillator; he died within a few days, silently and by all observations – peacefully. That was his choice, and it was honored after convincing his caregivers to abide by his decision.

It’s not Marcus Welby who will be taking care of you

Our current medical system is so over-burdened with patients at every level of care that the days of the old-fashioned family doctor who still admits his or her own patients and “rounds” on them every day (in addition to fulfilling their office obligations) are long-gone. Some patients are admitted to “hospitalists” (whom they have never met before) while others get admitted to whomever might be on-call in any variety of specialties (whom they also have never met before). Specialty medicine is just that……they focus on their particular specialty (as in the case of my relative). So, having a heart-to-heart discussion with your trusted family physician regarding your beliefs about end-of-life issues many (if not most) times never translates to the acute medical condition that lands you in the hospital. Even nursing home patients with DNR (do not resuscitate) forms can be ignored if they are not properly completed or the patient is not wearing the matching bracelet!

It seems that not only do patients need to be educated about the benefits of an advanced directives, living will and power of attorney, but physicians also need to be educated regarding compassionate, end-of-life and terminal care involving the whole being, such that they can communicate with family members, accept advanced directives and offer solutions to the dilemmas often faced by confused and emotionally drained family members faced with such situations.

Just as there should be dignity with life, there should be dignity with death.  It is the responsibility of both patients and providers to ensure this aspect of the human condition at whatever stage of a patient’s illness.

Have YOU ever been faced with such a situation?

Have you ever been faced with a situation where you were asked to make care decisions without an advanced directive? Have you ever found yourself in a situation where there was an advanced directive but the physician would not abide by it? Do you believe that it is a patient’s right to determine how they want to die and what medical interventions should be withheld under certain circumstances? How did YOU deal with such a situation?

Photo from enrichmentjournal.ag.org