VA tries quality improvement approach to medical ethics

Tools to evaluate how health care facilities perform ethically are in their infancy. The VA Health Care System hopes others can benefit from its experience.

By Tanya Albert Henry
amednews.com
Originally posted May 20, 2013

How often does a physician have enough time to discuss a treatment recommendation with a patient?

Would a doctor be reluctant to raise concerns if he or she believes a colleague's clinical abilities are impaired?

How often are notes or papers with identifiable patient information left in areas where other patients, relatives or staff members might view the sensitive material?

These are just a few of the questions the National Center for Ethics in Health Care at the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs is using to query its staff at the VA Health Care System. The goal is to help facilities see what they are doing well in terms of ethics and point out areas where they could be doing more.

The concept is similar to the recent push to evaluate quality of care by asking about procedural issues such as how well physicians are helping patients control hypertension or whether hospitals are keeping infection rates low.

Ethics evaluations, though, are not so common, and surveys do not tie payment to how well facilities score. However, the idea of measuring ethics as a component of quality of care is gaining momentum, and leaders in the field say its time has come.

“This is about managing ethics the same way you manage health care quality,” said Ellen Fox, MD, chief ethics in health care officer for the Veterans Health Administration. “Ethics quality is an important area that can have a dramatic effect on health care, including life-and-death decisions. … An effective ethics program promotes better patient care, better patient satisfaction, better efficiency.”

The entire story is here.

Vermont Legalizes Assisted Suicide

By Wilson Ring
The Associated Press
Originally published May 20, 2013

After years of debate, Vermont became the fourth state in the country Monday to allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives.

Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the bill into law at a Statehouse ceremony even as opponents vowed to push for its repeal.

The End of Life Choices law was effective immediately, although it could be weeks before the state Health Department develops regulations in accordance with the new measure.

Vermont Health Commissioner Dr. Harry Chen said he expects doctors to write between 10 and 20 lethal prescriptions a year, with a smaller number of patients actually using the drugs.

He based his figures on the experience in Oregon, the first state to legalize assisted suicide in 1997. Washington state and Montana followed later, with Montana's coming by way of a court order.

The entire story is here.

Physician-Assisted Suicide Program Wins Praise

By John Gever
Medscape News
Originally published April 10, 2013

Patients, their families, and physicians have been satisfied with a "death with dignity" physician-assisted suicide program made available to terminal cancer patients at a Seattle clinic, clinicians there reported.

Among 114 patients who asked about the program at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, the outpatient clinic for the city's major cancer treatment centers, 40 passed screening examinations and ultimately received lethal prescriptions for secobarbital, although only 24 actually took the drug, according to Elizabeth Trice Loggers, MD, PhD, and colleagues at the clinic and its affiliated centers.

"Patients, caregivers, and family members have frequently expressed gratitude after the patient obtained the prescription, regardless of whether it was ever filled or ingested, typically referencing an important sense of control in an uncertain situation," the authors wrote in the April 11 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The entire story is here.

The primary source is here.

A Texas Senate Bill Would Revise the State’s End-of-Life Procedure

By Becca Aaronson
The Texas Tribune/The New York Times
Originally published March 31, 2013

Texas lawmakers have grappled year after year over whether families or medical professionals should decide when to end a terminally ill patient’s life-sustaining care. This year, they seem closer to a compromise.

“If we were only making decisions based on medical facts, everything would be straightforward,” said Dr. Leigh Fredholm, the medical director of Seton palliative care at the University Medical Center Brackenridge in Austin. “But that’s not how we make decisions.” (Seton is a corporate sponsor of The Texas Tribune.)

State law allows physicians to discontinue treatment they deem medically futile. If a physician’s decision to end treatment contradicts the patient’s advance directive or the judgment of the patient’s surrogates, state law gives patients or their families 10 days to find another provider and appeal the doctor’s decision to a hospital ethics committee.

Advocacy groups that identify as “pro-life” say existing law does not go far enough to protect the interests of patients or their families. But they are divided on how legislators should change it. While support in the Legislature’s upper chamber seems to be coalescing around Senate Bill 303, which would tweak the process, some support bills that would bar doctors or hospital ethics committees from making the final decision to end treatment.

The entire story is here.

Patients should decide what the end of life is like, study says

By Mary VacVean
The Los Angeles Times
Originally published March 20, 2013

Finding out what dying patients want and treating them accordingly leads to happier patients who are in less pain and who use fewer healthcare dollars, UCLA researchers said Tuesday.

“You can improve care while reducing costs by making sure that everything you do is centered on what the patients want, what his or her specific goals are and tailor a treatment plan to ensure we provide the specific care he or she wants,” Dr. Jonathan Bergman, a Robert Wood Johnson clinical scholar at UCLA, said in a statement.

Bergman and colleagues wrote an article advocating for patient-centered care at the end of life in the journal JAMA Surgery.

People who are dying often receive care that is poorly coordinated and not in line with the patient’s values or goals, the journal authors said. That should change, they said.

The entire article is here.

Do We Need 'Thanaticians' for the Terminally Ill?

By Ronald W. Pies
Medscape - Ethics in Psychiatry
Originally published September 26, 2012

My 89-year-old mother had been losing ground for some years, experiencing what geriatricians sometimes call "the dwindles." Toward the end of her life, she was beset by a deteriorating heart; an inability to walk; and occasional, severe gastrointestinal pain. My family got her the best medical treatment available -- eventually including home hospice care -- and she generally maintained a positive attitude throughout her long downhill slide.

But one day, as I sat beside her bed, she seemed unusually subdued. "Honey," she said, "How do I get out of this mess?" I had a pretty good idea of what she was really asking me, but I deflected her question with another question: "Ma, what 'mess' do you mean?" I asked. "It's all right," she replied, smiling sadly, "I'll manage."

My mother was doing what she had always done: sparing her children from pain. In this case, it was the pain of dealing with the waning days of her life and the frustration of knowing there was no easy escape from the burdens of dying slowly. "Ma, I'll always make sure you are getting enough treatment for your pain," I added, taking her hand -- knowing that the prospect of unremitting pain is often an underlying fear of terminally ill persons.

Yet, unspoken in my mother's question was the issue of so-called physician-assisted dying, sometimes called "physician-assisted suicide" -- an enormously heated controversy both outside and within the medical profession. In my home state, Massachusetts, the issue has come to the fore, owing to a November ballot initiative for a measure that would allow terminally ill patients to be prescribed lethal drugs. A closely related bill (H.3884) has also come before the Massachusetts Legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

The entire ethical dilemma is here.

How Mom’s Death Changed My Thinking About End-of-Life Care

By Charles Ornstein

ProPublica – Co-published with The Washington Post

Originally published February 28, 2013

Here are some excerpts:

I've long observed, and sometimes chronicled, the nasty policy battles surrounding end-of-life care. And like many health journalists, I rolled my eyes when I heard the phrase "death panels" used to describe a 2009 congressional proposal that would have allowed Medicare to reimburse physicians who provided counseling to patients about living wills and advance directives. The frenzy, whipped up by conservative politicians and talk show hosts, forced the authors of the Affordable Care Act to strip out that provision before the bill became law.

Politics aside, I've always thought that the high cost of end-of-life care is an issue worthy of discussion. About a quarter of Medicare payments are spent in the last year of life, according to recent estimates. And the degree of care provided to patients in that last year — how many doctors they see, the number of intensive-care hospitalizations — varies dramatically across states and even within states, according to the authoritative Dartmouth Atlas.

Studies show that this care is often futile. It doesn't always prolong lives, and it doesn't always reflect what patients want.

In an article I wrote for the Los Angeles Times in 2005, I quoted a doctor saying: "There's always one more treatment, there's always one more, 'Why don't we try that?' ... But we have to realize what the goals of that patient are, which is not to be in an intensive-care unit attached to tubes with no chance of really recovering."

The entire story is here.

There is more to end-of-life practices than euthanasia — Authors' reply

The Lancet
Volume 381, Issue 9862, Pages 202-203

Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen, Arianne Brinkman-Stoppelenburg, Hans van Delden, Anges van der Heide

We agree with Jan Schildmann and Eva Schildmann that the debate on end-of-life practices should not be limited to euthanasia. We also agree that increased attention to palliative care does not necessarily result in good quality end-of-life care. Our study gives an insight into end-of-life decision making and end-of-life acts, but not into the quality of end-of-life care. Additionally, what good quality end-of-life care consists of is not that straightforward. This is certainly true for palliative sedation. Although there is an increasing body of published studies on this subject, there are controversies on terminology and ethical acceptability of the practice. Guidelines are a way to try to overcome this and to improve quality of care. Yet there are many different guidelines—eg, at the institutional level and in different countries—and the premises of national guidelines can be the subject of debate. In our opinion, the role of empirical studies such as ours is to underpin the ongoing debate with information about what occurs in practice.

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60087-2

May Doctors Help You to Die?

By Marcia Angell
The New York Review of Books
Published on October 11, 2012


On November 6, Massachusetts voters will decide whether a physician may provide a dying patient with medication to bring about a faster, easier death if the patient chooses. On the ballot will be a Death with Dignity Act that reads:

It is hereby declared that the public welfare requires a defined and safeguarded process by which an adult Massachusetts resident who has the capacity to make health care decisions and who has been determined by his or her attending and consulting physicians to be suffering from a terminal disease that will cause death within six months may obtain medication that the patient may self administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. It is further declared that the public welfare requires that such a process be entirely voluntary on the part of all participants, including the patient, his or her physicians, and any other health care provider or facility providing services or care to the patient.

If this ballot initiative passes, it will be binding, and Massachusetts will join Oregon, which implemented a virtually identical statute in 1998, and Washington, which did the same in 2009, as the only states where voters approved this form of physician-assisted dying, sometimes called aid-in-dying. (These terms are favored by proponents over the older term, physician-assisted suicide, because they distinguish it from the typical suicide in which someone with a normal life expectancy chooses death over life. Here the patient is near death from natural causes anyway, and chooses the timing and manner of an inevitable death.) Montana, through a 2009 decision by its Supreme Court, not a voter referendum, also permits physician-assisted dying.

The entire review is here.

Merciful Assistance or Physician-Assisted Killing?

By Ronald Pies, M.D.
psychcentral.com blog

Here are some excerpts:


From the standpoint of medical ethics, I see no fundamental moral difference in a doctor’s assisting a patient to jump off a bridge — without, of course, pushing him off — and a doctor’s prescribing a lethal dose of medication to “assist” in the patient’s suicide. The main difference is that, whereas anybody can assist a suicidal patient in climbing over a bridge railing, only physicians and a few other health care professionals are authorized by law to prescribe medication — and, in Oregon and Washington state, to prescribe lethal medication for “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS).

Of course, there are important procedural differences between my bridge scenario and the way PAS is handled in these states. There are numerous procedural safeguards in place to ensure that dying patients are thoroughly evaluated, and not pressured or coerced into requesting lethal medication — though the evidence is mixed as to how effective these safeguards have been. One study of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands found no evidence that disadvantaged groups (such as the elderly or disabled) are being disproportionately affected by the laws (Battin et al). On the other hand, another study (Finlay and George) concluded that, “…there is reason to believe that some terminally ill patients in Oregon are taking their own lives with lethal drugs supplied by doctors despite having had depression at the time when they were assessed and cleared for PAS.”

From a strictly ethical perspective, I believe physicians have no more business helping patients kill themselves with lethal drugs than they do helping patients jump off bridges — regardless of how “voluntary” the patient’s decision may be. Clearly, neither action is compatible with the traditional role of the physician as healer. Indeed, psychiatrist and ethicist Dr. Thomas Szasz has argued that “physician-assisted suicide” is merely a euphemism for “medical killing.” For these reasons, I am opposed to the November ballot initiative in Massachusetts for a measure that would allow terminally ill patients to be prescribed lethal drugs.

The entire blog post is here.

The Evolving State of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Massachusetts voters soon will decide whether to become the third state to legalize the contentious end-of-life care option for the terminally ill.

By Jaime Joyce

The Atlantic Monthly

Originally published July 16, 2012

Should terminally ill patients have the right to kill themselves? Voters in Massachusetts will soon decide. Last Wednesday, the Secretary of the Commonwealth announced that on November 6, 2012, when Bay State voters go to the polls to pick the next President, they will also have their say on a ballot measure called the Death with Dignity Act. If passed, the law would make Massachusetts the third state to give adults diagnosed with six months or less to live the option to end their lives using a lethal dose of doctor-prescribed medication.

(cut)

A study released by the Health Research and Education Trust shows that Americans are living longer lives than ever before. As a result, more individuals and families will face difficult questions about end-of-life care. In 2011, the oldest Baby Boomers turned 65. By 2030, the number of Boomers between 66 and 84 years old will climb to 61 million, and six out of 10 will be managing chronic health conditions. For the elderly and others facing terminal illness, doctors have numerous ways to prolong life. Palliative and hospice care are available to help patients find peace and comfort in their final days. But there are some people who want another option, which is the right to end suffering by taking their own life at a time and place of their choosing.

The entire story is here.

=====

Others posts about end of life issues and Death with Dignity can be found by using the "search" function on the right hand side of this blog.

Dutch Euthanasia Rates Unchanged After Legalization

By Robert Preidt
MedicineNet.com
Originally published July 10, 2012

The rates of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands in 2010 were comparable to the rates before the practices became legal in 2002, a new study finds.

(cut)

Researchers analyzed the Netherlands' death-registry data and found that the total number of euthanasia and assisted-suicide deaths in 2010 was 4,050, slightly less than 3 percent of all deaths.

The rates of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands decreased between 2002 and 2005, but increased between 2005 and 2010. The increase was due largely to a rise in the number of patients requesting to end their lives, the researchers said.

The entire story is here.

The research from The Lancet is here.

Mapping Your End-of-Life Choices

By Jane E. Brody
The New York Times - Well
Originally published June 18, 2012

Here is an excerpt:

“People need to sit down and decide what kind of care makes sense to them and what doesn’t make sense, and who would be the best person to represent them if they became very ill and couldn’t make medical decisions for themselves,” Dr. Hammes said.

“If, for example, you had a sudden and permanent brain injury, how bad would that injury have to be for you to say that you would not want to be kept alive? What strongly held beliefs and values would influence your choice of medical treatment?”

Divisive family conflicts and unwanted medical interventions can be avoided when people specify their wishes, he said. His own mother “told us that if she had severe dementia, it would be a total waste of her life savings to keep her alive. She would rather that her children got the money.”

“We help people work through the decision process and involve those close to them so that the family shares in their goals,” Dr. Hammes said. “When patients have a care plan, the moral dilemmas doctors face can be prevented.”

At Good Medicine in San Francisco, Dr. Brokaw and her colleagues have thus far helped about two dozen people explain their goals and preferences, at a cost of $1,500 for each person.

The entire article is here.

The Trial of “Death by Medicine”

By Daniel Callahan

The Hastings Center

Originally published on 02/13/2012

On February 5, Lisa Krieger, a science and medicine writer for the Mercury News in San Jose, Ca, published a remarkably moving and insightful article about the protracted dying of her 88-year-old father. Suffering from advanced dementia he contracted septicemia, was admitted to the ICU of the Stanford Hospital, and then spent 10 days going miserably downhill. As Krieger put it, “The medical nightmare started, as they so often do, incrementally.”

While her father had made clear prior to his dementia that he wanted to die a “natural death,” what he got what he got was an unnatural “death by medicine,” as someone once put it. The total cost for the hospital stay alone was $323,000. Again and again Krieger had to make a decision about going on, as one crisis after another surfaced. With each new crisis, the doctors offered hope. There was, they said, “a decent chance we could turn it around.” They could not, and he finally died. But as the days moved along from one crisis after another, Krieger kept asking herself, Was it all worth it? “Should we have quit?” she wrote. And when?

I have come to think that the decisions about stopping life-sustaining treatments may have become harder, not easier, since the 1960s, when the reform movement was gaining momentum. Medicine has become increasingly skilled technologically in keeping the dying alive. Her father, Krieger noted, “thanks to modern medicine . . . lived decades longer than his father.” That same medicine gave him a miserable death. That is a dilemma of modern medicine we have yet to resolve.

I put some questions to Krieger, and here are her responses.

  

As you have reflected in the aftermath of your father’s death, what kind of advice might you now give to someone in a similar situation?

This is what I would have done differently: I would have asked for a road map. A plan. Even if it’s just a back-of-the-envelope flow chart. What are we doing, and why?

I would have asked earlier: “Where are we headed, with all this? What’s the view from 30,000 feet up? Let’s say he survives and makes it out these hospital doors. Then what?”

I wish someone had told me about the range of choices. Not just: “Do You Have a DNR? Treatment or not?” Rather: “We can do everything. Or we can do some things, but not others. Or we can do nothing, but keep him comfortable.” That conversation never happened.

I think it is possible to have a conversation about options in aggressive treatment and palliative careat the same time-- early on, maybe upon entering the ER, or even when there is the initial dementia diagnosis. Not when things go south in the ICU. Because then you keep waiting for the perfect time to stop. There is no perfect time.

The entire story is here.

Oregon Emphasizes Choices At Life's End

By Kristian Foden-Vencil

Oregon Public Broadcasting

Originally published March 8, 2012

Terri Schmidt, an emergency room doctor at Oregon Health and Science University, can't forget the day an elderly man with congestive heart failure came into the hospital from a nursing home.

The man hadn't filled in a medical directive form, so, by law, Schmidt had to provide all the medical care possible.

"I intubated the man. I did very aggressive things. It didn't feel right at the time," says Schmidt. "There was just this sense in my mind that this is a 92-year-old very elderly person with bad heart failure. And about 15 minutes later, when I was able to get ahold of the family.  They said, 'You did what?  We talked about this! He didn't want it. We had a big conversation in his room about a week ago.'"

Oregon has been in the forefront of trying to make sure a person has as much control over the end of his or her life as possible. The state pioneered a form known as a POLST, for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, that has been adopted by 14 states and is being considered in 20 more. The form offers many more detailed options than a simple "do not resuscitate" directive.  

That's good for Helen Hobbs, who is 93 and lives in an assisted living facility in Lake Oswego. Age has bent Hobbs low and she uses a walker, but she is very clear-headed on this topic.

"You know, death is part of your life. You know you're going to get there someday so let's make it as pleasant as possible," Hobbs said. "I mean, would you like to stay in an unconscious condition for years while people kept you alive with feeding and hydration tubes? No."

Hobbs outlined her end-of-life medical decisions a couple of years ago, after a serious surgery. She used Oregon’s form. It is signed by her doctor, so it's legally enforceable.

The entire story is here.