Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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.

Original publication

DOI

10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01981.x

Type

Journal article

Journal

Bioethics

Publication Date

03/2014

Volume

28

Pages

127 - 137

Keywords

health care rationing, intensive care, medical ethics, resource allocation, withholding treatment, Conflict of Interest, Critical Care, Ethical Analysis, Ethics, Medical, Euthanasia, Passive, Health Care Rationing, Hospital Mortality, Humans, Informed Consent, Morals, Patient Admission, Time Factors, United Kingdom, Vulnerable Populations, Wedge Argument, Withholding Treatment