PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

B Stoffell

Publications and source records attributed to B Stoffell.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Complementary medicine in intensive care: ethical and legal perspectives.

Complementary medicine continues to increase in popularity in the general community. As a result it is likely that requests for the administration of complementary medicine to intensive care patients will be more frequent in the future. It is therefore prudent for intensive care clinicians to address this issue and develop an approach that is consistent. Complementary medicine has not been subjected to well conducted trials to determine its efficacy and risks. Consequently decisions about its use cannot be based on risk/benefit analyses and genuine informed consent cannot be achieved. Therefore complementary medicine should not be incorporated into intensive care practice. Strict adherence to a policy of negating requests for administration of complementary medicine in intensive care patients may result in significant conflicts between intensive care clinicians, patients and families. On occasions the patient or family may insist on the use of complementary medicine and it may be seen as important to their psychological wellbeing to accede to the request. The intensive care clinician is still legally responsible for any treatment administered to the patient, even if it is against medical advice. Nevertheless if there is no demonstrable risk to the patient, complementary medicine can be administered following appropriate counselling and documentation. This review addresses the legal and ethical difficulties that may arise and an approach that may be followed when requests are made for complementary medicine in intensive care patients.

Complementary Therapies↗
PubMed1995

Artificial hydration and alimentation at the end of life: a reply to Craig.

Dr Gillian Craig (1) has argued that palliative medicine services have tended to adopt a policy of sedation without hydration, which under certain circumstances may be medically inappropriate, causative of death and distressing to family and friends. We welcome this opportunity to defend, with an important modification, the approach we proposed without substantive background argument in our original article (2). We maintain that slowing and eventual cessation of oral intake is a normal part of a natural dying process, that artificial hydration and alimentation (AHA) are not justified unless thirst or hunger are present and cannot be relieved by other means, but food and fluids for (natural) oral consumption should never be 'withdrawn'. The intention of this practice is not to alter the timing of an inevitable death, and sedation is not used, as has been alleged, to mask the effects of dehydration or starvation. The artificial provision of hydration and alimentation is now widely accepted as medical treatment. We believe that arguments that it is not have led to confusion as to whether or not non-provision or withdrawal of AHA constitutes a cause of death in law. Arguments that it is such a cause appear to be tenuously based on an extraordinary/ordinary categorisation of treatments by Kelly (3) which has subsequently been interpreted as prescriptive in a way quite inconsistent with the Catholic moral theological tradition from which the distinction is derived. The focus of ethical discourse on decisions at the end of life should be shifted to an analysis of care, needs, proportionality of medical interventions, and processes of communication.

Brain Diseases↗