Editorial

Technological and Treatment Imperatives, Life-Sustaining Technologies, and Associated Ethical and Social Challenges

As biomedical research and specifically tissue engineering have advanced, the resulting ethical issues have only become more sophisticated and complex. To encourage future research efforts that apply the highest ethical standards, we must examine our approach from multiple perspectives. Researchers compose a diverse multidisciplinary group from various cultural and social backgrounds, and they must weigh concerns involving medical, environmental, and community consequences. The task of the larger community of tissue engineers and specific subspecialties of researchers necessitates mandatory and proactive endeavors to address the resulting ethical challenges that require debate continuously. This evolution of ideas is critical for science to remain practical to the most current times that it is practiced in. In addition to the traditional ethical issues, including justice, the topics of political influence and political interference in the conduct of tissue engineering research warrant discussion now more than ever before. Issues related to illegal organ harvesting/organ trading and the equitable distribution of resources between nations will need a renewed analysis and discussion. A deep understanding and analysis of emerging ethical challenges will benefit humanity and provide a framework to advance scientific research.

To describe the prevalence and context of decisions to withdraw extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with an ethical analysis of issues raised by this technology.

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of adults treated with ECMO at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, from whom ECMO was withdrawn and who died within 24 hours of ECMO separation.

Of 235 ECMO-supported patients, we identified 62 (26%) for whom withdrawal of ECMO was requested. Of these 62 patients, the indication for ECMO initiation was bridge to transplant for 8 patients (13%), bridge to mechanical circulatory support for 3 (5%), and bridge to decision for 51 (82%). All the patients were supported with other life-sustaining treatments. No patient had decisional capacity; for all the patients, consensus to withdraw ECMO was jointly reached by clinicians and surrogates. Eighteen patients (29%) had a do-not-resuscitate order at the time of death.

For most patients who underwent treatment withdrawal eventually, ECMO had been initiated as a bridge to decision rather than having an established liberation strategy, such as transplant or mechanical circulatory support. It is argued that ethically, withdrawal of treatment is sometimes better after the prognosis becomes clear, rather than withholding treatment under conditions of uncertainty. This rationale provides the best explanation for the behavior observed among clinicians and surrogates of ECMO-supported patients. The role of do-not-resuscitate orders requires clarification for patients receiving continuous resuscitative therapy.

Studies have demonstrated that patients with primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) often misunderstand the ICD. Advances in behavioral economics demonstrate that some misunderstandings may be due to cognitive biases. We aimed to explore the influence of cognitive bias on ICD decision making.

We used a qualitative framework analysis including 9 cognitive biases: affect heuristic, affective forecasting, anchoring, availability, default effects, halo effects, optimism bias, framing effects, and state dependence. We interviewed 48 patients from 4 settings in Denver. The majority were male (n = 32). Overall median age was 61 years. We found frequent evidence for framing, default, and halo effects; some evidence of optimism bias, affect heuristic, state dependence, anchoring and availability bias; and little or no evidence of affective forecasting. Framing effects were apparent in overestimation of benefits and downplaying or omitting potential harms.

We found evidence of cognitive bias in decision making for ICD implantation. The majority of these biases appeared to encourage ICD treatment.

More than 120,000 US patients were listed for solid organ transplants in 2016. Although data are scarce, we suspect that many of these patients will die while awaiting transplant and without engaging in goals-of-care discussions with their physicians. The challenges of addressing goals of care in patients with malignancy, end-stage renal disease, and heart failure have been studied. However, there is sparse literature on addressing goals of care throughout the dynamic process of transplant assessment and listing. We propose the concept of an organ transplant imperative, which is the perceived obligation by patients and health care providers to proceed with organ transplant and to avoid advance care planning and triggered goals-of-care discussions, even in situations in which patients' clinical trajectories have worsened, resulting in poor quality of life and low likelihood of meaningful survival. We situate this concept within the paradigms of clinical inertia and the treatment and technological imperatives. We illustrate this concept by describing a patient with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) who was hoping for a liver transplant, who was caught between the conflicting perspectives of specialist and primary care physicians, and who died of complications of ESLD without experiencing the benefits of advance care planning. Greater awareness of the transplant imperative should generate a shared understanding among specialists, generalists, and patients and will provide opportunities for more formalized involvement of palliative medicine experts in the care of transplant patients.

The term medical futility is frequently used when discussing complex clinical scenarios and throughout the medical, legal, and ethics literature. However, we propose that health care professionals and others often use this term inaccurately and imprecisely, without fully appreciating the powerful, often visceral, response that the term can evoke. This article introduces and answers 10 common questions regarding medical futility in an effort to define, clarify, and explore the implications of the term. We discuss multiple domains related to futility, including the biological, ethical, legal, societal, and financial considerations that have a bearing on definitions and actions. Finally, we encourage empathetic communication among clinicians, patients, and families and emphasize how dialogue that seeks an understanding of multiple points of view is critically important in preventing or attenuating conflict among the involved parties.