PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11847863

PEGs and ethics.

S B Mackie
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The ethics of dealing with the provision of nutritional therapies has been complicated by technological advances that have affected all of medical science. As a result, nurses are increasingly confronted with decisions regarding the provision of invasive treatments. Indeed, enormous faith is invested in the ability and wisdom of healthcare professionals to alleviate suffering and accomplish cure through the application of invasive therapeutic interventions such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement. Such decisions are often complex, present a moral dilemma, and are further complicated by prevailing politico-economic, social, and cultural influences. The insertion of tubes for artificial nutritional support in those patients who can be defined as "vulnerable" is no exception. This article explores both the clinical and ethical realities of PEG tube placement and use thereafter in vulnerable patients. The ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice are discussed within the context of PEG placement and feeding and recommendations are given for nurses practicing in the area of gastroenterology.

Explore related subjects

Advance DirectivesAgedDecision MakingEnteral NutritionEthicsGastrostomyHealth Care RationingHumansMedical FutilityQuality of LifeJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S B Mackie. PEGs and ethics.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11847863/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

"Not-for-resuscitation" orders in Australian public hospitals: policies, standardised order forms and patient information leaflets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and content of policies, standardised order forms (SOFs) and patient information leaflets (PILs) pertaining to "not-for-resuscitation" (NFR) orders in Australian public hospitals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional postal survey conducted across Australia from August to December 2005, using a one-page questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of Medical, Nursing or Clinical Services of all public hospitals in Australia with 60 or more beds, excluding psychiatric, military and private hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of documented NFR policies, by hospital characteristics, and content of these policies, SOFs and PILs. RESULTS: 222 hospitals were surveyed, and 157 responded (71%). Of these, 85 (54%) had NFR policies, 62 (39%) had SOFs, and four (3%) had PILs. Hospitals with more than 200 beds were more likely to have NFR policies than those with 60-200 beds (P = 0.04). More metropolitan than rural hospitals had NFR policies (P = 0.01). More hospitals with 60-100 beds had SOFs than hospitals with 101-200 beds (P = 0.03). "NFR" was defined in 53% of policies, while 97% of policies explicitly stated where NFR orders were to be documented, 89% stated who was allowed to make them, 37% stated that advanced care directives ("living wills") were to be respected, and 89% stated that competent patients should be involved in discussions regarding their NFR status. The most common items noted in SOFs were the name and signature of the issuing medical practitioner (92%) and documentation of the discussion with the patient (81%). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in the content of hospital policies, SOFs and PILs pertaining to NFR orders. Aspects of current policies show room for improvement.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed2006

Modifications to advanced life support in renal failure.

The outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been reported to be worse in patients with renal failure compared with those with normal renal function. It is likely that this increased mortality may be at least partly attributable to sub-optimal and highly variable treatment strategies used in cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure, but this issue has not previously been explored. Such patients undoubtedly pose a challenge to advanced life support (ALS) providers, and renal unit staff are not trained to provide specialist advice after a patient has sustained a cardiac arrest. There are few studies investigating the epidemiology, safety or outcome of cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure and there are no generally accepted resuscitation guidelines for this special circumstance. In this article we discuss the unique problems of resuscitating patients with renal failure and propose a suitable management strategy.

Advance Directives↗