Embed
Email

HYDRATION OF THE TERMINALLY ILL

Document Sample

Shared by: qinmei liao
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
4
posted:
10/25/2011
language:
English
pages:
28
THE ETHICS OF SEDATION & ARTIFICIAL

HYDRATION IN THE TERMINALLY ILL

To do or not to do?









Mr R Becker Senior Lecturer in Palliative Care

Staffordshire University and Severn Hospice Shropshire

Intent

whether a decision to sedate and/or

hydrate reflects an intention to

relieve pain and suffering,

discontinue burdensome or

ineffective treatment, or to cause

death

The Doctrine of Double Effect



If doing something morally good has a

morally bad side-effect it's ethically

OK to do it - providing the bad side-

effect was not intended. This is true

even if you foresaw that the bad

effect would probably happen.

Other ethical issues of significance



 Benefit to the patient

 Possible harm caused to the patient

 Respect for patient autonomy and the

right of self determination – i.e. choice

 Respect for the moral integrity of the

health professionals – codes of practise

 Sanctity of life ethic

Sedation?

The challenge of palliative sedation

 Confusion and inconsistency in the literature related

to conceptual definitions of the term “terminal

sedation”

 Disagreements over the clinical indications for its

use

 Inconsistency in pharmacological approaches to

sedation

 A paucity of qualitative research examining the

contextual factors and processes influencing the

attitude and behaviour of health professionals and

family members

Beel et al 2002

A Question of Definition?

In the beginning was “terminal sedation”

(Enke1991)



Negative association with the word terminal. Palliation

is a positive response to distressing symptomatology



The term does not give a clear indication of what

sedation is all about i.e. the intent



The term suggests that terminal sedation is about

terminating the life of the patient.

Palliative Sedation

“the intentional administration of sedative

drugs in dosages and combinations

required to reduce the consciousness of

a terminal patient as much as necessary

to adequately relieve one or more

refractory symptoms”



Broeckaert B 2002

Clinical Indicators for Palliative

Sedation

Unendurable and refractory symptoms?

 Uncontrolled physical pain

 Respiratory distress

 Delirium

 Nausea and vomiting

 Terminal agitation andrestlessness

 Psychological and/or spiritual distress



Ventafridda et al 1990, Cherny & Portenoy 1994, Chater et al 1998)

The incidence of refractory symptoms



 16% hospice patients (Fainsinger et al 1991)

 26% hospital patients (Stone et al 1997)

 36% in the last 48 hrs (Lichter & Hunt 1990)

 48% hospice patients (Morita 1996)

 50% hospital patients (Braun et al 2000)

 52.5% unendurable symptoms (Ventafridda 1990)

Limitations of the current research into

palliative sedation

 Most studies appear to be either surveys of

existing practise or empirical observations of

practise

 We lack in understanding of the context of

sedation and the human interactions that

influence the decision to sedate.

 Qualitative methodology : grounded theory,

clinical ethnography

The drugs most commonly used for

palliative sedation

 Benzodiazepines – Midazolam & Lorazepam

 Neuroleptics – Haloperidol

 Barbiturates – Phenobarbitol

 Opioids alone should never be used for

sedation

 Opioids where px should be continued

alongside the sedative drugs.

Mean survival of patients after starting

sedation

Porta Sales et al (1999) 3.2 days

Porta Sales (2001) 2.4 days

Fainsinger et al (2000) 2.4 days



Other studies

Fainsinger (1998) 4hrs – 12 days

Menten (2000) 1 – 18 days

Artificial

Hydration?

Artificial hydration: The Current Issues

The literature currently demonstrates considerable differences

in clinical practice regarding the use of artificial hydration in dying

patients



Varied opinions: a crucial part of the management strategy, or

unnecessary burden



There is only a small body of research available – much of

which is now quite old, and clinical experience appears to provide

the basis for most current practice



There appears to be no consistency in the amounts prescribed

or the rates and efficiency of delivery

A Selection of Viewpoints:

Dehydration can be seen as a normal part of the dying

process, patients who are dying of cancer usually give up

eating and then drinking, they become too weak to even take

fluids (Fox 1996)

In the same way that hunger is not a feature of

anorexia/cachexia, thirst is not a symptom associated with

decreasing fluid intake in those close to death (Dunlop et al

1995)

Most patients failing to drink in the terminal phase of their

illness, not given artificial hydration, do not suffer the normal

symptoms of dehydration (Dunphy et al 1995)

The symptoms of natural dehydration close to

death include:



Dry mouth

Headache

Fatigue

Cognitive Impairment

Circulatory collapse

Renal failure

Anuria

Potential Burdens of Artificial Hydration close to

Death

Can lead to fluid retention and overload leading to the

development of peripheral or pulmonary oedema



Can result in dyspnoea

Cannula in the arm can be uncomfortable

Risk of infection or phlebitis

Changes in body image

Can give confusing messages to the family – false hope of

cure and extended life



May be a physical barrier between the patient and family

Pain reduction in natural

dehydration at the end of life





A reduction in oedema around

tumours leads to decreased pain from

nerve compression (Zerwekh 1997)

The increase in ketones caused by

reduced calorific intake, causes a loss

of sensation (Printz 1989)

Research Into Artificial Hydration



Marin et al (1989) Surveyed 448 doctors and found that

53% would administer IV fluids to a comatose patient with

widespread malignant metastases. 83% would resite the

cannula as required and 26% would insert a central venous

line if no other route were available. “patient comfort” was

the reason given.



Collaud et al (1991) Surveyed 397 doctors and found that

28% would use artificial hydration in conscious, but dying

patients and 44% in unconscious ones. When asked to

assess the discomfort of dehydration 42% felt that dying

patients suffer significantly and 33% that patients scarcely

suffer.

House (1992) Compared views of hospice nurses and

doctors with general hospital staff and found that hospice

staff did not advocate artificial hydration whereas 43% of

hospital nurses felt that the patient suffered if hydration

was not maintained in the dying.



Malone (1995) Surveyed doctors in an acute hospital

setting and found that 75% would use IV fluids with the

dying and 40% would consider a central line if access was

difficult.



Harvath et al (2004) Studied attitudes of hospice nurses &

social workers to a patients voluntary refusal of food &

fluids. Results indicated a positive perception by staff for

this choice by patients.

UK National Council for Palliative Care Guidelines

(1997 updated 2005)

 A blanket policy of artificial hydration or no artificial hydration is

ethically indefensible.

 Towards death a persons desire for food and drink lessens.



 Thirst or dry mouth in the terminally ill may be caused by

medication…..Good mouth care is essential



 Good palliative care includes the option of artificial hydration

where there is a correctable cause….

 Assessment should be made on a daily basis re - benefits and

harm



 Health professionals must not subordinate the interests of

patients to the wishes of distressed relatives…..

Key Questions and Care Strategies

Engage in early discussion with the patient and family to

determine the patients wishes



Establish whether the patient has an advance directive



Reassure the patient and family that at all times the priority is

the comfort and support of the patient.



 Be tactfully resistant to sacrificing the interests of the patient

to the emotional distress of the relatives

Always present the facts carefully and sensitively - understand

the context and dynamics around the bedside

Key Questions and Care Strategies



Remember - thirst in the conscious patient should

always be actively addressed



Does the patient appear to “feel better” as a result of

the infusion? Is his/her well being/ alertness

enhanced?

What are the psychosocial effects? i.e. is the infusion

interfering with family interactions

Ensure pain and symptom relief is adequate and

assessed regularly

Key Questions and Care Strategies



Essential comfort measures : Regular mouth care, offer

ice cubes and sips of water if tolerated. Provide cream for

lips to prevent cracking, pressure area care, keep the

patient clean and dry at all times

Reassure the family that sedation is a valid means of

symptom control where no other measures are possible to

relieve distress

Reassure the family that stopping IV fluids is not

stopping care

Thank you for listening.









Email: bobb@severnhospice.org.uk

obb@severnhospice.org.uk



Related docs
Other docs by qinmei liao
Q CMA ExperienceRequirement
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Lipid Learning Activity
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
MATERIAL SAFETY AND DATA SHEETS
Views: 2  |  Downloads: 0
Financial Planning The Ties That Bind
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
Inflammatory Pain
Views: 4  |  Downloads: 0
Group goal setting workshop
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
MEETINGS REPORT ACTION SHEET
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
LYMPHOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Views: 0  |  Downloads: 0
By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!