If, on the other hand, a Nephrologist seeks to consider this question more carefully, ethics provides a structure, a system of thought that potentially assists towards a more nuanced answer to this question. Bioethics provides several well-recognized approaches to the question of the appropriateness or otherwise of commencing or continuing dialysis. They
include: 1. A balancing of the benefit versus the burden of therapy. In the Caring for Australasians with Renal Impairment (CARI) Guidelines ‘Ethical Considerations’[1] the authors commence by stating: The cardinal factor for acceptance onto dialysis or continuation of dialysis is whether dialysis is likely to be of benefit to the patient. They elaborate: An expectation of survival with an acceptable quality of life is a useful selleck compound starting point for recommending dialysis. This is a combination of objective and subjective Cytoskeletal Signaling inhibitor factors. Another useful and
authoritative guideline that seeks to assist Nephrologists in this deliberation is that issued by the Renal Physicians Association (RPA) of the USA. In their guidelines,[2] the RPA set out specific criteria where they consider it ‘appropriate to forego’ or ‘reasonable to consider foregoing’ renal replacement therapy. Both the CARI and RPA guidelines expressly state that a decision to pursue a conservative pathway for a patient with ESKD was both medically and ethically valid. 2. An approach based on the principles of Bioethics – Autonomy, Benefience, Non-Malefience and Justice. Here, in addition to balancing benefit and burden (the second and third principles), the clinician needs to be conscious of both individual self-determination (in
autonomy) and a general responsibility to society in the allocation of resources (justice). A 78-year-old man with significant comorbidities and deteriorating functional status has ESKD. After careful deliberation Selleck HA-1077 the Nephrologist considers that dialysis would not be in the best interest of the patient. The patient is not convinced and insists on the commencement of dialysis stating: ‘I want dialysis … it is my right to have it. Does Autonomy trump the other principles? No. Autonomy is one of four principles. In the modern era the principle of autonomy has been used to justify treatment that may not be appropriate on the basis of the view that the responsibility of medicine is to provide what the patients requests. All clinicians, including Nephrologists, have a responsibility to carefully balance the benefits and burdens of treatment, including dialysis and communicate that recommendation to the patient and family. The wishes and values of a patient should be considered but they should not, taken alone, be determinative.
Related posts:
- Before the initial visit, caregivers consented to answer the ques
- However,
on the other hand, the fact that the patient is - On the other hand tumors of low activity (e g carcinoid tumors o
- On the other hand, on the best of our knowledge there is certainl
- On the other hand, disadvantages associated with antiviral therap