When to let go? Medicine's top dilemma

By Tom Heneghan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A terminal leukemia patient must have daily blood transfusions or die. A family begs doctors to do everything possible to keep their elderly mother alive. Parents cannot accept their newborn baby will not survive.

End-of-life issues top the list of ethical dilemmas hospitals face as medical progress enables doctors to extend an endangered life to the hard-to-determine point where they may actually only be dragging out death.

Private dramas like these play out in hospitals every day, rarely hitting the headlines as did the family feud over ending life support for Terri Schiavo in the United States in 2005 or a British couple's fight to save their severely handicapped baby Charlotte Wyatt in 2003 when doctors wanted to give up on her.

These patients used to just die naturally, but now it might be doctors, hospital ethics committees or courts that decide if and when to let them. The more science discovers, especially about the brain, the harder it can get to make that decision.

"The ability of medicine to keep people alive for such long periods of time -- despite their best efforts to die -- has changed the way people perceive the end of life," said Susan desJardins, a pediatric cardiologist and member of the ethics committee at Arnold Palmer Hospital in Orlando, Florida.

"We have to ask when to provide care, when to stop care, when care is futile," she said during a recent bioethics course for health care professionals at Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute of Ethics.

TECHNOLOGY AHEAD OF MORALS

Participants at the course were doctors, nurses, chaplains, social workers, administrators, lawyers and others, reflecting the mix of staff hospital ethics committees include to ensure these issues are thoroughly debated.

The nearby Washington Hospital Center has two trained philosophers for ethics consultations. At George Washington University Hospital, a special institute on spirituality and health studies faith and end-of-life issues.

"Our technology is ahead of our morals," said Washington Hospital Center medical director John Lynch. "From an ethical point of view, we haven't learned when to use our technology.

"The biggest problem here is futile treatment," he said. "That's when it's clear after some time that a patient, under normal medical circumstances, is never going to get better.

"People say there could be a million in one chance of recovery, but we can't work that way."

But when does it become useless to keep tubes feeding and hydrating a patient whose heart works but brain seems dead?

"Our hospital attempted a few years ago to write a policy on futility," Mary Ruckdeschel, a social worker from Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said at the Georgetown course.

"We were never able to do this because people could not agree on the definition of futility."