‘They’ve Fallen and Hit their Head… Now...

Post on 30-Apr-2018

214 views 2 download

Transcript of ‘They’ve Fallen and Hit their Head… Now...

‘They’ve Fallen and

Hit their Head… Now What…?’

Workshop

APM Ethics Committee Study Days

Telford, January 2016

Dr Craig Gannon

craiggannon@pah.org.uk

• Princess Alice Hospice, Esher, 1995-

– Medical Director, clinical ethics committee

• University of Surrey, Guildford, 2012-

– Visiting Reader, ex-university ethics committee

• Association of Palliative Medicine

– Ethics Committee, 2009 – on-going

• Publications / teaching

– Ethics in BMJ, JME, IJPN, CE, NE

• Royal College Physicians

– SCE Question Writer, Exam Board, Standard Setting Group

Jobbing Consultant

Not Philosopher, Lawyer...

2

J7 to J14 of M25

3

• Make your own mind up

– Workshop!

• The ethical issues following a head injury

– Three cases

• How make mind up not what is right action

– Enhances clarity of thought

• Better decisions

• Better communication

• Better engagement

Plan – Get You Thinking!

4

Be Provocative…

5

• Explore clinical, ethical, legal principles

– Generalisations... not case-by-case!

• Share my / our opinions

– No absolute right vs. wrong

– I’m not necessarily ethical!

• Healthcare isn’t always ethical!

– No perfect answers...!

– Realistic expectations…?

NO Answers… NOT Tell!

6

Who Here is Already

an Expert in Ethics?

7

• Our choices…

– Test of our behaviour / character

• Our opinion…

– View on others’ behaviour / character

Ethics is Everywhere:

… We’re Life-Long Learners!

8

• Descriptive ethics –

– Observe; what do we see people decide?

• Normative ethics – Judge; what should people think is right?

• Applied ethics – Do; How to put moral knowledge into practice?

• Meta-ethics – Nature; what does 'right' even mean?

Gentle Reminder:

Classes of Ethics

9

Normative Ethics Made Easy!

• Three key ways to test our care:

• Duty-based ethics (deontology)

– Do duty

• Consequentialism

– Get result

• Virtue ethics

– Match good character

10

• Do right thing

– Whatever the outcome

• Only path matters

– Traditional

– Clear, follow rules

– Inflexible

• Risk jobs-worth doctor

– No DNACPR, so do CPR in T/C

– Not use CD drugs if not signed

– Never admit from out of area

Kant’s Duty-Based Ethics

11

• Try for best results

– Whatever it takes

• Outcome only

– Modern / selfish

– Clear, results

– Presumptive

• Risk cavalier doctor

– ‘T/C’ just to get in hospice

– ‘Ca2+ normal’ when forgot

– Not admit out-of-area if no £

Consequentialism

12

Lance Armstrong “wins” stage

Tour de France in 2004

• “Good” character

– Reflects “worthy”

• Balancing all needs

– Ideal vs. naïve…?

– How; subjective?

– Who; judges?

• Risk drippy doctor

– Too nice, not able to decide!

– No help when it’s difficult

– No help when it’s urgent

Virtue Ethics

13

• Cannot ‘mix & match’ or unprincipled

– One principle you / everyone should follow…

– Choose one to use in workshop section…

• Duty-based ethics

– Follow rules… whatever outcome, even patient harm

• Consequentialism

– Get result… at any cost / break rules, even GMC / law

• Virtue ethics

– Do what a person of good character would do

Which Moral Philosophy

is Right for You at Work…?

14

Different Ethical Approaches;

30 mph Speed Limit

• Duty-based ethics

– 30 mph maximum

– Law is law, full stop

• Consequentialism

– 33 mph usually

– Never “done” <34 mph

• Virtue ethics

– 30 mph normal max

– 35 mph if emergency

15

Same Road… Same Principle

You Notice You're Speeding…?

• Duty-based ethics

– 30 mph maximum

– Law is law, full stop

• Consequentialism

– Hit brakes so 29 mph!

– No risk <30 mph

• Virtue ethics

– Carry on at 33 mph, take the fine; as not safe to hit brakes

16

• Moral elasticity and moral multiplicity

– Bend / shift ethics to do what you want!

– Real world... increasingly “accepted”

– Play clever is the new ‘worthy’...?!

2016: Un-Virtuous Ethics:

…Morals, Only When Suits!!

You must obey rules… I just want fair play

17

I don’t obey rules, they’re just for fools

Decision-Making After

Head Injury in ‘Hospice’

18

• On-call doctor for a hospice

– Live 25 minutes drive away

• Telephoned, “patient has fallen”

– Good details from on-site staff

– Possibly “serious” head injury; details on handout

– Patient “too woozy” to give view

• Need decision now as you are ‘lead clinician’

– Stay put for comfort and T/C or 999 / send to A&E?

– What influences your advice?

Decision-Making After

Head Injury in ‘Hospice’

19

• In 3 groups, “quick” 15 minutes – 1 of 3 different scenarios on hand-outs

• Abbreviations – S/C, symptom control; ‘expected’ to get home

– T/C, terminal care; ‘imminently’ dying

– QoL, quality of life

– HCP, healthcare professional

– LPA, lasting power of attorney

– DNACPR, do not attempt resuscitation

– PPC, Preferred Priorities of Care

– ADRT, Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment

Decision-Making After

Head Injury in ‘Hospice’

20

Why Do Some Decisions

Feel So Difficult...?

• Misplaced HCP fears create problem

– Not unique, any treatment = a treatment

– Explicit, but same issues at end of life

– Not more difficult patients / families

• Mustn’t abandon normal approach

– Our best advice (uncertainties)

– Individualised care (different views)

– Imperfect, but sufficient, as always…

21

22

Paradox:

Everyone is on Same Side…

• No conflict…

– Need reassure / remind everyone (ourselves!)

• Be realistic…

– Decision as right as possible

– Satisfies all stakeholders:

• Patients / families / friends

• Professionals, organisations

• Media

• Courts

23

When at Odds…

…Always Avoidable?

• HCP suboptimal practice

– Clinical, legal, ethics gaps

• Poor clinical decisions

– Don’t do it right

• Poor explanations

– Don’t explain it right

• Unhappy when told not for any food or fluids by unsure F1

• No ethical dilemmas:

• To offer / give treatment it must be:

– Required

– Acquired

– Desired

Our Duty for Any Treatment

…is Simple!

24

1. Could treatment work?

– Predictable net gain

2. Is treatment available?

– Ambulance / in hospital

3. Is treatment wanted?

– Consent / no refusal

Our Duty… is Simple…!

“Required, Acquired and Desired”

25

‘Yes’ X3 = Transfer!

Your Decision

After Head Injury…

26

• Reassure

– Never wrong…

• Scare

– Never right!!!

Ethical Deliberation:

None or Many Answers…!

27

• As in clinical practice, we won’t all agree

– Could it work?

– Is it available?

– Is it wanted?

Your Decision

Case 1, After Head Injury…

28

• Could it work? No

– Clinical ‘triage’; no treatment indicated – no net gain

• Is it available? No

– Rationed; neurosurgery not on offer / paramedic “no”

• Is it wanted? No

– No is “sufficiently” in-line with patient…?

• Notes – clinical / patient first

– Over-rules “family”

– Your CEO may have a view if ignore lawyer…?!

– If consequentialist vs. virtue vs. duty-based

Case 1 Potential Answer…

T/C in Hospice

29

• As in clinical practice, we won’t all agree…

– Could it work?

– Is it available?

– Is it wanted?

Your Decision

Case 2, After Head Injury…

30

• Could it work? No

– Clinical triage; not fit to move / no indication; no net gain

• Is it available? No

– Ration; dying; no neurosurgery even if paramedic ‘yes’

• Is it wanted? N/A!

– Over-rule patient and family: clinically best in hospice

• Notes – clinical / patient first

– Scary… less certain! Even LPA (…in theory?)

– Defensive; fell from a hoist, your benefit vs. your guilt…?

– If consequentialist vs. virtue vs. duty-based

Case 2 Potential Answer…

T/C in Hospice!

31

• As in clinical practice, we won’t all agree…

– Could it work?

– Is it available?

– Is it wanted?

Your Decision

Case 3, After Head Injury…

32

• Could it work? Yes

– Potentially reversible pathology

• Is it available? Yes

– Active management would be offered in hospital, but…

• Is it wanted? No

– Clear Best Interests +/- valid and applicable ADRT

• Notes – clinical / patient first

– In theory… but send in practice (for her family)???

– Flaw in ADRT; was this foreseen, could mind changed?

– If consequentialist vs. virtue vs. duty-based

Case 3, Potential Answer…

T/C in Hospice?

33

Key Issues

Across the Three Cases

34

Legal

Policy Duty

Conscience

Patient / NoK Colleagues

• Could it work?

• If yes; it available?

• If both yes; is it wanted?

• If unclear, default is offer and give unless refusal:

– Competent refusal

– Valid and applicable ADRT / LPA refusal

• All other factors less influence, even if emotive

– Discretionary… ‘ethically’ no less important…?

– Consensus ideal, but not needed… the difficult bit…!

First do Clinical Questions… to

See if there’s a ‘Choice’

35

• Get decision ‘just right’

– Not “we always send to be safe”!

– Not “we don’t send to hospital”!

– Not “we follow ACP”!

– Not “we do want family want”!

• All decisions, always ‘maybe’

– Acknowledge difficult

– May over-treat / may under-treat

– Not impossible… easy!!!!

No Blanket Approach:

Not Too Fast or Slow to Send!

36

Goldilocks

• First step: will surgery help…?

– From evidence base: any predictable net gain?

– Only reasons for increased observations / investigations…

• Only if yes, then, is it available?

– Is HDU really on offer…?

– In this place / this context?

• Only then, is it wanted?

– Patient choice…

– If start here – it falls apart…!

Clinical Decision Making

Starts with Can Hospital Help...?

37

Virtue Ethics: Not Lofty Ideal,

Just ‘Sits’ Between Two Vices

38

Vice: Excess

Unethical practice

e.g. cavalier

Virtue

Best Practice e.g. courageous

Vice: Deficiency

Unethical practice

e.g. cowardly

Common-sense middle ground

Does Virtue Ethics

Apply to All Decisions…?

39

Clinical Decisions Fail if Lacking

Professional Courage

40

Vice: unethical If just follow rules / path least resistance; only do as

in notes

Vice: unethical If don’t consider rules / do it my way; a blanket

yes / no Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)

Need the Virtue of Courage:

…to Break Rules / Take Risks

41

‘Virtues’ Aristotle

(384 BC – 322 BC)

Professionalism: Discerning: weigh pros / cons:

treat when appropriate

A considered

expert view

Conclusion: Ethics Means

No Blanket Decisions

42

Chris Froome / Team Sky

Tour de France, 2015

Thank You

43

Four Quadrant Approach Jonsen, Siegler & Winslade, 1992

1. Clinical issues 2. Patient preferences

Diagnosis / medical history

Goals of treatment?

What treatment options?

Probability of success / prognosis for each option

Best case / worst case / likely case

Does patient have capacity? Assess

Yes = consent, what do they want?

No = will it return / best interests;

Decide Best Interests – inform decision-making; prior expressed preferences or an

ADRT?

Consult stakeholders, is there a surrogate decision maker?

3. Quality of life 4. Contextual factors

What distress is the patient experiencing?

Multi dimensional: function / symptom /

existential

Difficult to define – person centred

Will treatment improve QoL / be acceptable

to the patient?

Religious, cultural, legal factors that need

to be taken into account?

Social / family influences... are there

conflicts of interest?

Resource limitations, or influence clinical

research / teaching?

44

A Patient’s Right to Refuse

Medical Interventions...

Phew! I’m off… That was easy...

45

• Even if they will die...?

• Even if it demands an action by HCPs...?

• Is ethical and legal guidance the same…?

• Are there ‘special’ cases?

Is the Right to Refuse

Treatment Absolute...?

46

• Cannot force patients into treatment

– Since 1990’s case law clear

• High profile UK cases

• With / without capacity

– Since 2007, reinforced in statute

• Without capacity

• Mental Capacity Act, 2005

100% Legal Right to Refuse

Life-Prolonging Therapy

47

• Any or no reason… even if irrational

– Agree to disagree, but cannot force care

– No harm required (unlike negligence)

– Risk battery, even if help

• Without prejudice

– All remaining best care must be offered

– Patient can change their mind

• Re B (2002) wanted discontinue ventilation

– Competent adult right to refuse medical treatment

– Deemed “unlawful trespass”

Legally Patients’ Right to Refuse

Absolute and Binding

48

• Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] HL, PVS

– Artificial hydration & nutrition are treatments

– Best practice into case law

• MCA 2005, since 2007

– Advance decision binding…if “valid & applicable”

– Statute – paradox, now harder to stop…???

Legally Refusal Still Binding After

Capacity is Lost

49

• Can you think of any ‘special’ cases?!

– When might you say ‘no’...?

A Patient’s Right to Refuse

Ethically NOT Absolute…?

50

• Turning off ventilator instant

• Removing an oesophageal stent invasive

• Turning off an ICD or pacemaker emotive

• Lack capacity just from ADRT nervous

Refusing a Patient’s Right to

Refuse the Special Cases?

51

• Public health risk

– Enforce isolation, treatment e.g. Ebola

• Reasonable boundaries

– Personal hygiene... infested house?

• Ambivalent and “panicking” patient

– Re MB (1997); footling breech, agreed LSCS but refused

anaesthetic as needle phobic

– Ruled lack of capacity; panic from fear of needle!

Must Override Patient Refusal if

Greater Clinical Need...?

52

• 34-year-old woman

• Jehovah witness

– ADRT; No Transfusion, even if life at risk

• RTA

– 999 to A&E; bleeding

• Retains capacity

– Refusing life-saving blood transfusion

• Can you give transfusion?

– What basis?

Case 1

Can You Refuse the Refusal?

53

Why Can Decision-Making

Feel so Difficult…?

54

Should I, or shouldn’t I...?

• 34-year-old woman

– 30/40 pregnant

• Jehovah witness

– Valid ADRT... even if life at risk

• RTA

– 999 to A&E; bleeding

• Retains capacity

– Refusing life-saving blood transfusion

• Can you give transfusion?

– What basis?

Case 2

Can You Refuse the Refusal?

55

Key Issues for Both Cases

56

Legal

Policy Duty

Conscience

Patient / NoK Colleagues

• Personal conscience

– Will vary

– Can you live with your decision?

• Professional duty

– Default is give, but “cannot” follow

– GMC / NMC may support either way…

• Unit policy

– Requirements will vary Trust to Trust...?

– May be disciplined

Key Issues for Both Cases

1 of 2

57

• Legal requirements

– Don’t give (battery / trespass)

– Possibly give (best interests)

– Judge & jury will decide if innocent or guilty...?

– Statute / case law or may set new precedent

• Subsequent views of patient / next of kin

– May sue if do or don’t transfuse…

• Subsequent views of colleagues

– Whistle blow, refuse work with you, make life nightmare

Key Issues for Both Cases

2 of 2

58

• Making DNACPR (omission)

• Turning off an ICD (act)

Acts vs. Omissions

Which is Easier for HCPs...?

59

Act of omitting to remove

the scissors!

• Discontinuing a treatment

– Act / withdraw...

• Not starting a treatment

– Omission / withhold...

• Historically seen as different

– Common and comforting

– Convenient

– Arguably incorrect

Any Difference Between

Acts and Omissions?

60

Act

Omission

• No professional bearing

– ‘Indistinguishable’ morally & legally » In Bland Law Lords decision, 1999

– “…act or omission…” » GMC, 2015

– Convicted arson, not for starting but as did nothing » Miller, R v [1983] HL

• Withholding is act of omission

– Same accountability / same responsibility

• Disease / therapy / time dictates if act / omission

– Already has NGT or doesn’t yet have NGT

No Clinical Distinction

Between Acts and Omissions

61

• 72-year-old man

• Ca oesophagus and liver secondaries

• Slow decline; bed bound prognosis ~ 1-2 weeks

• PEG feeds on 24-hour regimen

– No net gain… possibly more harm than good?

– PEG working well, assumed life-prolonging

• Lacks capacity; no advocate, no ADRT / LPA

• Can we stop the feeds now?

An Act: Case 1

62

• 72-year-old man

• Ca oesophagus and liver secondaries

• Slow decline; bed bound prognosis ~ 1-2 weeks

• PEG feeds on 12-hour regimen

– No net gain… possibly more harm than good?

– PEG blocked at end last feed, assumed life-prolonging

• Lacks capacity; no advocate, no ADRT / LPA

• Can we decide not replace PEG or restart feeds?

An Omission: Case 2

63

• Carries weight in society

– May influence patient choice

– May influence a jury!

• Emotive differences need to be addressed

– Patients, families

– Colleagues – even if professionally irrelevant

Distinction Acts v. Omissions Still

Carries Impact

64