This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garros, D.
Right arrow Articles by Cox, P. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garros, D.
Right arrow Articles by Cox, P. N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
PEDIATRICS Vol. 112 No. 5 November 2003, pp. e371-e371

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE

Circumstances Surrounding End of Life in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Daniel Garros, MD*, Rhonda J. Rosychuk, PhD{ddagger} and Peter N. Cox, MD*

* Department of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
{ddagger} Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children’s Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Objective. Approximately 60% of deaths in pediatric intensive care units follow limitation or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST). We aimed to describe the circumstances surrounding decision making and end-of-life care in this setting.

Methods. We conducted a prospective, descriptive study based on a survey with the intensivist after every consecutive death during an 8-month period in a single multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care unit. Summary statistics are presented as percentage, mean ± standard deviation, or median and range; data are compared using the Mantel-Haenszel test and shown as survival curves.

Results. Of the 99 observed deaths, 27 involved failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation; of the remaining 72, 39 followed withdrawal/limitation (W/LT) of LST, 20 were do not resuscitate (DNR), and 13 were brain deaths (BDs). Families initiated discussions about forgoing LST in 24% (17 of 72) of cases. Consensus between caregivers and staff about forgoing LST as the best approach was reached after the first meeting with 51% (35 of 68) of families; 46% (31 of 68) required ≥2 meetings (4 not reported). In the DNR group, the median time to death after consensus was 24 hours and for W/LT was 3 hours. LST was later withdrawn in 11 of 20 DNR cases. The family was present in 76% (45 of 59) of cases when LST was forgone. The dying patient was held by the family in 78% (35 of 45) of these occasions.

Conclusions. More than 1 formal meeting was required to reach consensus with families about forgoing LST in almost half of the patients. Families often held their child at the time of death. The majority of children died quickly after the end-of-life decision was made.

Key Words: withdrawal of therapy • death • futility • pediatric intensive care • ethics • attitude of health personnel • critical care • decision making • drug utilization • passive euthanasia • human • intensive care units • life support care • palliative care

Abbreviations: ICU, intensive care unit • LST, life-sustaining treatment • PICU, pediatric intensive care unit • HSC, Hospital for Sick Children • BD, brain death • DNR, do not resuscitate • RES, resuscitation • ALS, advanced life support • W/LT, withdrawal or limitation of therapy • CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation • LOS, length of stay • ECLS, extracorporeal life support • NMB, neuromuscular blocking agent

Up to 90% of deaths in adult intensive care units (ICUs) in North America follow an order to forgo life-sustaining treatment (LST).1,2 In pediatric ICUs (PICUs), retrospective studies done during the past decade indicate that 40% to 60% of all deaths follow such a decision.3–7 However, few of these reports describe how these decisions were reached.7–10 A more recent study analyzed 53 deaths in 3 PICUs in the United States in which LST was forgone. The author’s focus was on the medications given at the end of life and the physicians’ and nurses’ levels of satisfaction with the care provided.11 The revelation about the presence of paralyzing agents in some patients at the time of withdrawal of LST and that 2% of the involved professionals believed that hastening death is an acceptable goal in itself generated great controversy.12–14 Consequently, more information about pediatric intensivists’ actual practices regarding forgoing LST in children8,10,15,16 is warranted. Some details about these events, such as timing of decision making, terminal sedation, barriers to achieve consensus with families, and their participation in the process, remain topics that need additional exploration.17,18

The purpose of this study was not only to determine the modes of death in a single large multidisciplinary PICU in Canada but also to describe the decision-making process and the end-of-life care. We also examined the level of difficulty to reach consensus with families or surrogates about forgoing LST, a facet not well described in this population. This is a descriptive study based on a self-administered questionnaire completed by the most responsible intensivist after every consecutive death in our PICU.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
This study was conducted in the PICU of the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC), a multidisciplinary unit with 36 beds, 5 full-time staff physicians, 8 clinical fellows, and 1 or 2 rotating pediatric residents. There are approximately 2000 admissions per year, 35% to 45% of which are cardiac surgery patients. The unit is the largest in the country, serving an urban population of approximately 5 million in the south central region of Ontario, Canada.

Questionnaire
We conducted a prospective analysis of all deaths that occurred in the unit over 8 months (1995–1996). This time interval was selected for convenience and practicality. For every child who died, the physician involved with the patient completed a written questionnaire within 24 hours of the death. The survey was given to the intensivist as part of the "death package" (death certificate, checklist for nurses and physicians, autopsy consent form, etc), and it was self-administered. On a few occasions, the principal investigator consulted with the responsible physician for clarification purposes (see below). A pilot study was performed for 6 months in the previous year, allowing the PICU staff to become familiar with the study terminology and to modify and refine the survey format.

The questionnaire contained several types of questions, such as precoded simple, multiple-choice, open-ended, ranking-order, and branching. It documented the patient’s characteristics, admission diagnosis, number of formal meetings with families (as a surrogate of the level of difficulty to reach consensus), mode of death, the time from decision to forgo LST to death, family presence at the time of death, and other items. Every patient was classified at the time of death by the patient’s intensivist according to the following parameters:

  1. Brain death (BD): when criteria for brain death were met19–21
  2. Do not resuscitate (DNR): when a DNR order was clearly previously documented22,23
  3. Failed resuscitation (RES): when either advance life support (ALS) failed to restore circulation or increasing doses of epinephrine infusion failed to maintain cardiac activity
  4. Withdrawal or limitation of therapy (W/LT): when medical staff and family agreed that the present level of LST would be limited and/or the child would be actively removed from inotropes and/or mechanical ventilation24.

The physicians were asked to give reasons for forgoing LST, as a result of their interactions with the families. The following options were available for response, according to the model used by Mink et al4 and originally described by Tomlison and Brody25: 1) additional medical therapy of no benefit (eg, cancer untreatable); 2) present quality of life is unsatisfactory (eg, neurovegetative state); 3) if a new cardiac arrest occurs, then additional life quality would be unsatisfactory; and 4) other (open-ended question).

To improve the accuracy of the survey, several steps were taken. The sections related to demographics, the child’s diagnosis, and the levels of support were confirmed by reviewing the PICU database, the death summary files, and the mortality review committee minutes. All patients who had "terminal weaning and/or terminal extubation" had their hospital charts audited to validate the information about the use of paralyzing agents. The principal investigator (D.G.) reassessed the initial classification of the type of death and demographic information with the responsible physician in 13 of the 99 cases (5 WT/L, 5 DNR, and 3 RES) to ensure the accuracy of the responses and obtain missing data. For example, some patients underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) a few hours before having LST withdrawn or withheld, hence the need for additional clarification.

In this PICU, decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing LST are multidisciplinary and family centered. A hospital bioethical committee is available for consultation if required. The family members are encouraged to be at the bedside and to hold their child immediately before or during the process of discontinuation of LST, should they so wish.

As per previous agreement among all PICU staff and the hospital research board, written informed consent was not obtained for this research. Accordingly, all physicians participated in the study on a voluntary basis after an ample consultation process. Therefore, by reading the introductory letter attached to the study questionnaire and returning it completed to the investigators, the physicians agreed to participate. Because the study did not involve any direct patient intervention or data collection that could in the future potentially identify a particular case, seeking informed consent from families or surrogates was considered unwarranted.

Statistical Analysis
Summary statistics are presented as percentage, mean ± standard deviation, or median and range where appropriate. The Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests were used to test the equality of the highly skewed age distributions. The time to death and decision data are represented as survival curves and compared with Mantel-Haenszel tests.26 Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher exact test, and multiple comparisons were corrected with the Bonferroni method. P = .05 was considered to be significant for the whole-group analyses.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
During the study period (8 months), there were 99 deaths (7.3%) in the PICU out of a total of 1359 discharges from the unit. PICU deaths corresponded to 52.3% (99 of 189) of the hospital deaths. The modes of death were W/LT in 39.4% (39 of 99), RES in 27.3% (27 of 99), DNR in 20.2% (20 of 99), and BD in 13.1% (13 of 99; Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Modes of Death (n), Age, and LOS

 
Fifty-six percent (56 of 99) were male. The median age of the study group was 0.78 years, or 9.3 months (range: 1 day–17.2 years). Summary values for the patient’s ages are shown in Table 1. The age distributions were different among the 4 groups (Kruskal-Wallis = 19.05, df = 3; P < .001). RES patients were younger than both BD (P < .001) and DNR patients (P = .006). In addition, the W/LT patients were younger than the BD (P = .002) patients.

The mean length of stay (LOS) in the PICU for all patients admitted during the study period was 3.8 days (range: 1 day–6 months). In contrast, the study population stayed for an average of 4.94 days (range: 1–38 days) in the PICU. Summary measures are given in Table 1. The LOS of the DNR and W/LT groups was longer than the RES and BD (Mantel-Haenszel = 24.8, df = 3; P < .001).

Socioeconomic Data
The spectrum of family backgrounds and reported religion reflects the region’s population composition at the time.27 A total of 67.7% (67 of 99) of the patients were Anglo-Saxon, and 10.1% (10 of 99) were of Indo-Pakistani descent. Four patients were of Middle Eastern, 4 of Canadian Aboriginal, 4 of Italian, 3 of Chinese, 3 of Caribbean, and 1 of Israeli descent. The ethnic origin was not described in 3 cases. Unemployed caregivers composed 20.2% (20 of 99), versus a regional unemployment average of 9% to 10% during the same period.28.

Religious background reflected the population base: 31.3% (31 of 99) of parents or legal guardians were Roman Catholic, 25.3% (25 of 99) were Protestant, 5 were Hindu, 4 were Sikh, 3 were Moslem, 2 were Jewish, 1 was Buddhist, and 1 was Jehovah’s Witness. In 26.3% (26 of 99) of the cases, the religion was not voluntarily disclosed (as this is not required by hospital policy) or the parents reported other or no religion.

Admission Diagnosis and Cause of Death
Admission diagnoses were categorized as medical, cardiac surgery, trauma, postsolid organ transplantation (liver, kidney, and heart), and other surgery as shown in Table 2. Trauma patients were more often BD cases, and medical and cardiac surgery patients were predominantly W/LT and RES cases, respectively (Fisher exact test, P = .001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Admission Category

 
The primary PICU admitting diagnoses of the study population were heart disease (including both medical and postsurgery cases) in 46.5% (46 of 99), malignancies in 14.1% (14 of 99), acute respiratory failure associated with infection in 8, postsolid organ transplantation in 7, trauma in 6, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn in 6, congenital diaphragmatic hernia in 5, and other conditions in 7. Table 3 portrays the final conditions reported by the physicians as immediately preceding death.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Final Diagnosis at the Time of Death

 
Decision Making and End-of-Life Care for the DNR, W/LT, and BD Groups (N = 72)
In all 72 cases classified as DNR, W/LT, and BD, formal meetings with the families or surrogates were held. The family spontaneously raised the issue of limiting or withdrawing LST in 23.6% (17 of 72). The BD group was included in this analysis for 2 reasons: 1) because we found some resistance to discontinuing therapy in 5 of the 13 cases; and 2) because of the sudden nature of these events, we sought to evaluate the interaction between staff and families.

After initial informal conversations with the family at the bedside, a more formal meeting was usually called to discuss goals and choices regarding additional therapy. The intensivists would then explain the options available and try to reach common goals for additional management. The attending physician was present at all of the gatherings. Nurses attended in 75% (54 of 72), fellows in 62.3% (45 of 72), residents in 52.8% (38 of 72), social workers in 29.2% (21 of 72), chaplains in 9.7% (7 of 72), and an interpreter was required for 4 cases. Hospital ethics representatives were involved on 1 occasion. Judicial review was not obtained in any case.

A consensus about forgoing LST was achieved in the first formal "sit-down" meeting with families or surrogates in 51.4% (35 of 68). In 17.6% (35 of 68), 2 formal meetings were required, and in 28% (19 of 68), >2 meetings were held for sharing information. On 1 occasion, no complete agreement was reached. The parents of an adolescent who had a diagnosis of brain death after trauma had trouble understanding the BD concept. Resuscitation was not provided at the time of a cardiac arrest, and the family subsequently accepted the decision. In another particularly challenging case, the parents of an infant with severe pertussis declined the option of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) on the basis of their religious beliefs, a decision that was respected. In 4 cases, no details were available and the respondents could not recall the information.

When exploring the factors involved in the degree of difficulty reaching consensus, we empirically subdivided these families into 1 meeting (35 of 68), ≥2 meetings (33 or 68), or no consensus. Four cases were not included in this analysis because of lack of complete information. No association was found among type of family (eg, parents alone, divorcees, single parent, grandparents), employment status, racial background, admission category (medical, postgeneral surgery, postcardiac surgery, transplant, or trauma) and the level of difficulty reaching agreement. Religious background was the only factor that demonstrated some association with the level of difficulty to reach consensus. Among the 15 Protestant families, 73.3% (11 of 15) reached consensus after the first gathering and 3 required >1 meeting; 1 case was unknown. Among the 5 Hindu families, several meetings were held to reach consensus in 4 cases, and with 1 family, 2 meetings were convened (Fisher exact test, P = .028). In 2 BD cases (meningitis, nonaccidental injury), 2 meetings were held and 3 cases (trauma, blocked shunt, and septic emboli postheart surgery) required several meetings.

Use of Analgesics/Sedatives (n = 59)
The 13 BD patients were excluded when assessing analgesia and sedation usage. In 96.3% of the 54 patients in which this information was recorded (5 had no answer), some form of sedation or analgesia to alleviate discomfort and/or pain was in use at the time of death. Two patients did not receive medications because they were totally unresponsive, although they were not BD. Reflecting the current PICU practice, the most frequently used agent was morphine as a continuous infusion in 94.4% (51 of 54) of patients. The infusion rate was increased around the time of death in 20.4% (11 of 54). In 3 children (W/LT group), an extra dose of narcotic was given, and in 4 situations, other sedatives were used in isolation or combination with morphine.

In 20.4% (11 of 54) of the patients, the physician reported that a neuromuscular blocking agent (NMB) administration order was still in effect at the time of death; however, no doses were given after the decision to forgo LST was made. The timing of the last dose of NMB actually given was not requested. The principal investigator audited these patients’ charts and death summaries to confirm these data. It is the practice at the HSC PICU not to use continuous infusion of NMB, so at all times, doses were intermittently given. In 8 of these 11 cases, ventilation was not discontinued; 3 children had DNR orders that were maintained, 1 underwent limitation of LST, 2 had only inotropic support removal, and 2 were cardiac patients in refractory shock removed from ECLS. Only 3 of these 11 ventilated patients underwent "terminal extubation." Two of them had diaphragmatic hernia exhibiting refractory hypoxemia despite maximum therapy before extubation. The decision to withdraw was made at the bedside with 1 family 5 minutes before their child died, and in the other case, it was 3 hours before death. The final case was an infant in refractory cardiogenic shock after cardiac surgery who had inotropes discontinued along with terminal extubation. This occurred when he was already bradycardic.

Physicians’ Reasoning for Limiting or Withdrawing Therapy
On this question, physicians were allowed to choose >1 option; hence, 73 answers were obtained for the 59 cases of W/LT and DNR (BD and RES excluded). The most frequent response (68.5%) was "further medical therapy of no benefit"; "present quality of life is unsatisfactory" was answered in 19.1%. Alternative "C"—"If a new cardiac arrest occurs, further life quality would be unsatisfactory"—was given in 12.3% of the answers. There were 3 spontaneous answers: "parents asked for no more suffering," "refused ECLS," and "not a candidate for transplant."

Methods of Therapy Withdrawal
Of the 39 W/LT cases, therapy was withdrawn in 82.1% (32); the remaining 7 patients had treatment withheld or not escalated (Fig 1). Within the DNR group, 55% (11 of 20) evolved to actually have LST removed. Hence, in the groups in which an end-of-life decision needed to made, the practice at this center was actually to remove LST rather than just limit it in 72.9% (43 of 59) of all cases (ie, DNR and W/LT groups together). Of the 58 ventilated patients, terminal extubation as single method occurred only in 9 cases.


Figure 1
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig 1. Patient groups and the end-of-life pathway. *One patient was not placed on mechanical ventilation. {dagger}One patient had ECLS not reinstated after a technical incident as a result of the child’s cerebral injury diagnosed just hours before.

 
Interval Between the Decision to Forgo Therapy and Actual Death
Usually, DNR orders were written late in the patient’s PICU course (mean: 6.9; range: 0.4–27.6; median: 4.1 day postadmission), except with 1 patient, who arrived in the PICU with a DNR in place. Generally, the time interval between decision and death was short in comparison with the entire LOS in the PICU. As described previously, 55% (11 of 20) of the DNR cases actually had withdrawal of therapy later in their PICU stay. The timing of the decision to limit or withdraw LST relative to death was available in 34 of 39 patients in the W/LT group. In this group, such a decision was also made late in the child’s PICU course (mean: 5.8; range: 0.2–36.6; median: 3.2 days). After a choice was made, it took less time for W/LT patients to die (median: 3 hours; range: 0.03–72 hours; mean: 9.1 hours) than the DNR patients (median: 24 hours; range: 4.8 minutes–6 days; mean: 38.8 hours; Mantel-Haenszel = 8, df = 1; P = .005). Once LST was removed, patients died within 0.5 minutes to 24 hours (mean: 80.3 minutes; median: 2.5 minutes).

A comparison between time of decision and death for the DNR and W/LT patients is presented in Fig 2. Within 12 hours of the decision time, 15% of the patients were still alive in the W/LT group compared with 58% in the DNR group.


Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig 2. Times from decision to death for W/LT and DNR groups (P = .005).

 
Family Presence at the Time of Death
The family was present in 76.3% (45 of 59) of cases when therapy was withdrawn or limited, with no difference between DNR and W/LT groups. Among these 45 cases, in 77.8% (35 of 45), a family member or a guardian held the child at the time of death. Six (46.1%) patients in the BD group were organ donors and extubation was done in the operating room, so the families’ final moments with their children were in the PICU.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
This study confirms many previous observations about deaths within a PICU, and adds some details of value. A strength of this report is its prospective nature, because many previous articles were based on retrospective chart reviews.3–6,16,29,30 Such studies may suffer from recall and interpretation bias.9 Potential limitations of this report are the possibility of "responder bias," as a result of the emotional nature of these encounters and the possibility of recall bias when the main investigator had to interview the staff (13 of 99 cases). This study is somewhat similar to an investigation by Burns et al,11 who used a survey tool to evaluate prospectively end-of-life practices in 3 hospitals of a large metropolitan area in the United States. However, we examined additional aspects of this process, such as the presence of other PICU caregivers in the formal meetings with families, as an indicator of their participation13 and the families’ attendance at the bedside at the time of death. Furthermore, we explored the level of difficulty in achieving consensus with families about forgoing LST using the number of formal meetings as its surrogate.

Modes and Time of Death
It is known that 30%4,6 to 60%5,11,30,31 of deaths in a PICU follow decisions to forgo LST. The mode of death distribution found in this study is comparable to other pediatric series published during the past decade.3–6,10,16,29–32 This survey revealed that with the exception of 1 case, the physician responsible for writing DNR orders was actually the intensivist, frequently a stranger to the families, rather than the child’s referring physician.7,33–35 The patients in the study who had LST forgone were older and had a longer PICU stay.11

The end-of-life process more frequently involved LST removal, because only 18% (7 of 39) of the W/LT group had limitation or no escalation of therapy as the mode of choice. We did not routinely perform the Pediatric Risk of Mortality36 score in our PICU at the time of the study; therefore, we cannot comment on whether withdrawal or limitation of LST was responsible for a more rapid death or this population was more severely ill than the DNR patients. Although not a universal finding,11,37 higher admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, and Pediatric Risk of Mortality scores have been reported for patients with limitation of LST compared with patients with other modes of death.7,9,38 The short time interval between withdrawal of LST and death (median: 2.5 minutes) may indicate how gravely sick these patients were at the time or simply how dependent they were on the support measures being used.

Why and How Decisions Are Made
Previous studies have shown that neurologic impairment is 1 of the major reasons to forgo LST.4,10 In contrast, our survey showed that the majority (two thirds) of our patients did not have severe neurologic impairment as the main reason for having LST forgone. The intensivists did not indicate this, and the list of final diagnoses did not support it. Thus, in such cases, physicians must base their decision on factors not related to the possible future impairment of the intellectual or mental ability of the child. Expectation of imminent death is the main rationale for pediatric intensivists’ forgoing therapy.7 It is certainly different from quality of life (which was an option) and poor prognosis,9 both factors quoted by adult clinicians39,40 and some neonatologists.41 In our survey, "lack of benefit from further therapy" was the most common reason given. Pediatric intensivists may be more comfortable with the justification of lack of "physiologic benefit" or "disproportionate burden"15 from additional therapy, when death seems imminent and yet so difficult to predict accurately.31 In contrast, for parents, issues such as quality of life, likelihood of improvement, and perception of their child’s pain are the predominant decision-making factors.42 A survey among physicians and nurses with hypothetical case scenarios revealed that family preferences, probability of survival, and functional status are the major determinants influencing decisions about restricting life-support interventions in pediatrics, although there are markedly different attitudes depending on who is in charge of the patient.43

Our survey clearly demonstrated that decision making at the end of life in the PICU is a dynamic process.31,33,37,39,44 In almost half of the W/LT group, limitation in the level of support was considered in the earlier stages. Subsequently, 1 or more modes of LST were actually withdrawn. In the DNR group, approximately 50% of the cases evolved from DNR to active withdrawal of LST. Nevertheless, the patients were maintained as DNR to demonstrate that a DNR order might be the first step in a process that is subject to frequent reevaluations of its goals. It seems to be easier for the families to agree initially with limitation rather than active withdrawal of LST. However, as time passes, the clinical situation in some cases may become increasingly more difficult for both the families and the staff.7 Therefore, waiting and watching is no longer a good option.44 This extra time, however, may allow the families to come to terms with their child’s inevitable death, a period needed for acceptance. Keenan et al9 demonstrated the same pattern in their survey involving adults. In another Canadian study, 96% of adult patients were first classified as DNR, then vasopressors were discontinued, and finally mechanical ventilation was terminated.37

Approaching the Families
Talking to families or surrogates about these issues is very challenging to most physicians.45 Only 41% of the patients in the SUPPORT study engaged in discussions with their physicians about CPR, and in 80% of the cases, physicians misunderstood the patient’s preferences.46 Frequency of physician communication with families47 and the quality of information given keeps arising as a significant problem for relatives of dying patients in intensive care,48 although in 1 pediatric survey 70% of parents believed that they were well informed.42

The intensivist is still most likely to initiate formal discussions about forgoing care, not the family.6,7,9,29,42 Approximately 30% of our families raised the issue of forgoing LST themselves compared with 44% in a study from the 1980s4 and 16% found in a multicenter study involving 16 PICUs.7 Meyer et al42 reported that up to 45% of parents had considered the possibility of limiting therapy before discussing it with any staff member. We speculate that the high number of families initiating the process in the late 1990s may reflect a shift from a somewhat more paternalistic medical attitude to a more family-centered care philosophy in pediatric institutions.17 Underlining the principles of autonomy and informed consent,49–51 the present environment allows families to be more confident in expressing their wishes and thoughts. Hence, families may already have a clear position about their opinion before a formal discussion takes place. In large academic pediatric centers such as the HSC, it is also not uncommon to "push the envelope" in complex patients.52 Such cases can generate a variety of different views within the multidisciplinary health care team about how to proceed, and this may delay some decisions.1,34,40,53,54 Consequently, the families feel compelled to voice their choices.

Our nurses’ participation, although judged only by their presence in the formal meetings, was higher (75%) than has been reported in adults (16%)9,38 and in 1 recent French pediatric study.10 This may indicate either the good physician-nurse relationship existing in the unit or the different nature of the bedside relationship between nurses and families in a PICU compared with an adult ICU.48,55,56 Nurses normally engage in bedside discussion with parents about these issues long before there is an opportunity for the physicians to have formal meetings with them.31,42 Optimally, the nursing staff should be involved in all of the steps of the decision-making process.17 Burns et al57 demonstrated that nurses are less likely to agree that families are well informed and ethical issues are well discussed when asked about their PICU’s practice. One deficiency of our study is the lack of feedback from nurses and physicians about their views regarding the adequacy of the end-of-life care provided in each case in which they participated. We also did not characterize the level of participation of nonmedical personnel during our meetings. The Boston study revealed in their population a high rate of agreement between physicians and nurses on decision making and satisfaction with patients’ treatment.11 The residents’ presence in the formal meetings was poor and needs to be encouraged.33 Family conferences about end of life should be seen as an effective58 "teachable moment" for staff in training.59,60

In 50% of the cases, 2 or more formal meetings with families were necessary to reach consensus about forgoing therapy, perhaps indicating a more complex process or the existence of different goals regarding additional management.7,9 Moreover, in 1 BD case, consensus was never reached; thus, the patient died without receiving CPR. In a multicenter PICU study, most orders to restrict LST were written on average after 2 meetings with the families or surrogates.7 Likewise, approximately half of the families in adult studies would agree immediately or after only 1 meeting.9,40 When 4 or more gatherings were held before a consensus was established, a lower admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and a trend to a longer adult ICU stay were found.40 Breen et al61 reported conflict between staff and families in 48% of end-of-life discussion, and nearly 50% of families in another survey reported some form of conflict during their family member’s stay in the adult ICU.48 The similarity between the difficulties to achieve consensus with relatives of adults and children in the ICU is somewhat surprising, considering the differences in expectations about life span and family dynamics between these 2 patient populations.17

We could not detect an association among socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and disease category on admission to the ICU with the number of meetings held. The correlation found with religious background is an important fact49,62 that has not been clearly shown in this context before, except in BD cases.63 Additional studies are necessary to substantiate this finding. It has been demonstrated that even physicians, whose preferences’ play a pivotal role in such decisions,34,53 may express diverse approaches to end-of-life decisions34,35 on the basis of their own religious background and country of origin.43,53,55,64,65 Within multicultural societies such as ours, understanding the patient’s values and ethnocultural and religious traditions may improve end-of-life care by reducing the risk of conflicts and allowing more individualized care.49,63,66–69 A model for the proper use of LST in the ICU and for conflict resolution has been adopted recently by the HSC, which involves a negotiation and mediation model in a stepwise manner.70

It is noteworthy that even in patients with BD, 38% of them presented a challenge when it came to the removal of support. The disease process, the acute nature of the event that led to BD,71 and perhaps the concept of BD itself could explain this finding.63,65

Level of Support and Comfort Measures
When it becomes evident that cure or acceptable quality of life is no longer possible or expected, the focus of care changes from prolonging life to ensuring a dignified death.17,46,72–77 Previous studies in adults have reported a worrisome degree of treatable pain in dying patients.46,78,79 However, a recent family satisfaction survey in Canadian adult ICUs revealed that surrogates were satisfied with the pain management received for their loved ones.47 In our population, analgesia with morphine was used in almost all W/LT cases as described previously in neonates80 and adults.81 Increase in infusion rate occurred in <20% of our cases; furthermore, only 13% (7 of 54) had anticipatory dosing of sedatives at the time of death. Unfortunately, we did not ask the intensivists to specify or to justify their approach regarding analgesic dosage or to report whether any level of discomfort was perceived; thus, we do not know whether we have achieved our objective. A parent survey revealed that 20% disagree that their children were comfortable in their final days in the ICU,42 which corroborates previous studies of many children with cancer reported to be dying in pain.82 The health care team seems to believe that they are doing a commendable job. Burns et al11 showed agreement between nurses and doctors in 87% of their cases with respect to the medications that they used. According to them, it seemed that they were sufficient in ensuring patient comfort.

Similar to other studies,11,83,84 we also had 3 patients who were weaned from ventilation and extubated with orders still valid in the charts for intermittent doses of NMB or paralyzing agents. Their clinical conditions were such that death was imminent despite aggressive therapy. In our population, NMBs were clearly not administered around the time of forgoing LST. We believe that they serve no therapeutic purpose during withdrawal of LST. The removal of ventilation was also not an attempt to determine whether the patient would survive, because the child’s condition had failed to stabilize despite the use of maximal support and death was virtually certain.85 The continuation of its use could be acceptable only by the disproportionate burden of continuing treatment while waiting to be sure that there was no residual effect still present.85–87 Recently, 3 editorials were written about this issue in a critical care journal. They followed the Boston paper describing the presence of NMB in 8 dying patients of 53 studied. This conduct, although controversial12–14,86,88–91 and not ideal, has not been uncommon in ICUs.11,81,83,89 The most recent guideline for end-of-life care from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee explored this issue. The recommendation is that removal of LST in the presence of paralysis is "reasonable when physicians 1) are highly certain that the patient would not survive separation from the ventilator, 2) proceed with careful regard for the patient’s comfort, and 3) have concluded that the benefits of waiting for the return of neuromuscular function are not sufficient to outweigh the burden."17 Our patients certainly met these criteria.

The family’s presence at the bedside is another important element in the dying process, which is not well documented.17,74 In a slight majority of our cases, a family member was present at the time of death after limitation or LST withdrawal. Many caregivers actually held their child while LST was removed, or they lay in bed with their dying adolescents. Unfortunately, we did not investigate why some people elected not to be there. Some prefer it that way, and their choice is respected in our PICU. Although an emotionally charged situation, the family presence makes the process a clear and open one, conveying the shared nature of the decision. In a neonatal study involving 4 ICUs in the Netherlands, parents of extremely premature newborns were present at the time of death in 89% of the occasions.84


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 
Most deaths in the modern PICU are not unexpected; they are preceded by a clear decision to limit or, more often, discontinue LST. Therefore, improved care at the end of life is paramount.

Because of the difficulties in accurately predicting the outcome for a particular case, patients tend to have a prolonged course in the PICU before an end-of-life decision is made. A formal consultation with the family ensues after the health care team perceives that prolonging treatment would be inappropriate and not beneficial. The final decision comes as a shared one, although the consensus is achieved with some degree of difficulty in a relatively high number of cases. Direct neurologic involvement is infrequently the main cause for forgoing therapy. After a decision is made, the majority of children will die within 48 hours, most likely from withdrawal rather than limitation of LST. Death occurs within the PICU, frequently with a caregiver at the bedside holding the patient.

Additional studies are still necessary to uncover additional factors that may complicate this process of decision making. Our ultimate goal should be to make the unfortunate circumstance of a child’s death within the PICU as humane and dignified as possible.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We are indebted to Geoffrey Barker, FRCPC, for inspiring us to conduct this research and for initial critical reviews of the manuscript. We also thank Colleen Gresiuk, RN, for editorial contributions.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Received for publication Mar 28, 2003; Accepted Jul 16, 2003.

Reprint requests to (P.N.C.) Department of Critical Care, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, M5G 1X8, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: pcox{at}sickkids.on.ca

This work was presented in poster form at the 30th International Educational and Scientific Symposium, Society of Critical Care Medicine; February 10–14, 2001; San Francisco, CA.

Dr Garros’s present affiliation is Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children’s Hospital, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Prendergast TJ, Luce JM. Increasing incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.1997; 155 :15 –20[Abstract]
  2. McLean RF, Tarshis J, Mazer CD, Szalai JP. Death in two Canadian intensive care units: institutional difference and changes over time. Crit Care Med.2000; 28 :100 –103[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  3. Ryan CA, Byrne P, Kuhn S, Tyebkhan J. No resuscitation and withdrawal of therapy in a neonatal and a pediatric intensive care unit in Canada. J Pediatr.1993; 123 :534 –538[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Mink RB, Pollack MM. Resuscitation and withdrawal of therapy in pediatric intensive care. Pediatrics.1992; 89 :961 –963[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Vernon DD, Dean JM, Timmons OD, Banner J W, Allen-Webb EM. Modes of death in the pediatric intensive care unit: withdrawal and limitation of supportive care. Crit Care Med.1993; 21 :1798 –1802[Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Lantos JD, Berger AC, Zucker AR. Do-not resuscitate orders in a children’s hospital. Crit Care Med.1993; 21 :52 –55[Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Levetown M, Pollack M, Cuerdon TT, Ruttimann UE, Glover JJ. Limitations and withdrawals of medical intervention in pediatric critical care. JAMA.1994; 272 :1271 –1275[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Wall SN, Partridge JC. Death in the intensive care nursery: physician practice of withdrawing and withholding life support. Pediatrics.1997; 99 :64 –70[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Keenan SP, Busche KD, Chen LM, McCarthy L, Inman KJ, Sibbald WJ. A retrospective review of a large cohort of patients undergoing the process of withholding or withdrawal of life support. Crit Care Med.1997; 25 :1324 –1331[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Devictor DJ, Nguyen DT. Forgoing life-sustaining treatments: how the decision is made in French pediatric intensive care units. Crit Care Med.2001; 29 :1356 –1359[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  11. Burns JP, Mitchell C, Outwater KM, et al. End-of-life care in the pediatric intensive care unit after the forgoing of life-sustaining treatment. Crit Care Med.2000; 28 :3060 –3066[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Goldstein B, Merkens M. End-of-life in the pediatric intensive care unit: Seeking the family’s decision of when and how, not if [editorial]. Crit Care Med.2000; 28 :3122 –3123[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Frader JE. Withdrawing mechanical ventilation in children [editorial]. Crit Care Med.2000; 28 :3119 –3120[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Nelson RM. Extubation or euthanasia: getting the facts clear [editorial]. Crit Care Med.2000; 28 :3120 –3121[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Keenan HT, Diekema DS, O’Rourke P, Cummings P, Woodrum DE. Attitudes toward limitation of support in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med.2000; 28 :1590 –1594[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  16. McCallum DE, Byrne P, Bruera E. How children die in Hospital. J Pain Symptom Manage.2000; 20 :417 –423[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Truog RD, Cist AFM, Bracket SE, et al. Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: the Ethics Committee of The Society of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med.2001; 29 :2332 –2348[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Rubenfeld GD, Curtis JR. End-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a research agenda. Crit Care Med.2001; 29 :2001 –2006[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Parker BL, Frewen TC, Levin SD, et al. Declaring pediatric brain death: current practice in a Canadian pediatric critical care unit. Can Med Assoc J.1995; 153 :909 –916[Abstract]
  20. American Academy of Pediatrics Special Task Force: Guidelines for the determination of brain death in children. Pediatrics.1987; 80 :298 –300[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. The Hospital for Sick Children. Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Brain Death. Patient Care Policy. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Hospital for Sick Children; 1987 (Report No. 2.25)
  22. The Hospital for Sick Children. Do not resuscitate (DNR) order. In: Policy and Procedure Manual. Toronto, Ontario Canada: Hospital for Sick Children; 1994: 1–3
  23. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. Guidelines for the appropriate use of do-not-resuscitate orders. JAMA.1991; 265 :1868 –1871[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. American Thoracic Society. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapy. Ann Intern Med.1991; 115 :478 –485
  25. Tomlison T, Brody H. Ethics and communication in do-not-resuscitate orders. N Engl J Med.1988; 318 :43 –46[Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Mattews DE, Farewell VT. Using and Understanding Medical Statistics. 3rd ed. Basel, Switzerland: Karger; 1996
  27. Statistics Canada. Population by ethnic origin, 1996 census. Government of Canada, Statistics Canada; 1996. Available at: www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Population/demo28a.htm. Accessed April 17,2001
  28. Statistics Canada. Statistics profile: income and work statistics for Toronto and Ontario. Statistics Canada; 1996. Available at: ceps.statcan.ca/english/profil/Details/. Accessed April 17,2001
  29. Goh AYT, Lum LCS, Chan PWK, Bakar F, Chong BO. Withdrawal and limitation of life support in paediatric intensive care. Arch Dis Child.1999; 80 :424 –428[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Von Seggern K, Egar M, Fuhrman BP. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a pediatric ICU. Crit Care Med.1986; 14 :275 –277[Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Vose LA, Nelson RM. Ethical issues surrounding limitation and withdrawal of support in the pediatric intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med.1999; 14 :220 –230[Free Full Text]
  32. Anderson BJ, McCall E, Leversha A, Webster A. A review of children’s dying in a paediatric intensive care unit. N Z Med J.1994; 107 :345 –347[Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Danis M, Federman D, Fins JJ, et al. Incorporating palliative care into critical care education: principles, challenges, and opportunities. Crit Care Med.1999; 27 :2005 –2013[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Luce JM. Physician variability in limiting life-sustaining treatment. Crit Care Med.1999; 27 :2291 –2292[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Kollef MH, Ward S. The influence of access to a private attending physician on the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med.1999; 27 :2125 –2132[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Pollack MM, Patel K, Ruttimann U. PRISM III: an updated pediatric risk of mortality score. Crit Care Med.1996; 24 :743 –752[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Wood GG, Martin E. Withholding and withdrawing life-support in a Canadian intensive care unit. Can J Anaesth.1995; 42 :186 –191[Web of Science][Medline]
  38. Ferrand E, Robert R, Ingrand P, Lemaire F. Withholding and withdrawal of life support in the intensive-care units in France: a prospective survey. Lancet.2001; 357 :9 –14[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  39. Faber-Langendoen K, Bartels DM. Process of forgoing life-sustaining treatment in a university hospital: an empirical study. Crit Care Med.1992; 20 :570 –577[Web of Science][Medline]
  40. Prendergast TJ. Resolving conflicts surrounding end-of-life care. New Horiz.1997; 5 :62 –71[Medline]
  41. Whitelaw A. Death is an option in the neonatal intensive care. Lancet.1986; 2 :328 –331[Web of Science][Medline]
  42. Meyer EC, Burns JP, Griffith JL, Truog RD. Parental perspectives on end-of-life care in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med.2002; 30 :226 –231[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  43. Randolph AG, Zollo MB, Wigton RS, Yeh TS. Factors explaining variability among caregivers in the intent to restrict life-support interventions in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med.1997; 25 :435 –439[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  44. Sprung CL, Eidelman LA. Worldwide similarities and differences in the forgoing of life-sustaining treatments. Intensive Care Med.1996; 22 :1003 –1005[Web of Science][Medline]
  45. Finucane TE. How gravely ill becomes dying [editorial]. JAMA.1999; 282 :1638 –1645[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. The SUPPORT group investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. JAMA.1995; 274 :1591 –1598[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Heyland DK, Rocker GM, Doeck PM, et al. Family satisfaction with care in the intensive care unit: results of a multiple center study. Crit Care Med.2002; 30 :1413 –1418[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  48. Abbot KH, Sago JG, Breen CM, Abernethy AP, Tulsky JA. Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. Crit Care Med.2001; 29 :197 –201[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  49. Oppenheim A, Sprung CL. Cross-cultural ethical decision-making in critical care. Crit Care Med.1998; 26 :423 –424[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  50. Gilligan T, Raffin TA. Physicians virtues and communicating with patients. New Horiz.1997; 5 :6 –14[Medline]
  51. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics.1995; 95 :314 –317[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Esserman L, Belkora J, Lenert L. Potentially ineffective care, a new outcome to asses the limits of critical care. JAMA.1995; 274 :1544 –1551[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, et al. Determinants in Canadian health care workers of the decision to withdraw life support from the critically ill. JAMA.1995; 273 :703 –708[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Cook DJ. Health professional decision-making in the ICU: a review of the evidence. New Horiz.1996; 5 :15 –19
  55. Vincent JL. European attitudes towards ethical problems in intensive care medicine: results of an ethical questionnaire. Intensive Care Med.1990; 16 :256 –264[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  56. Reckling JB. Who plays the role in decisions about withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment. J Clin Ethics.1997; 8 :39 –45[Web of Science][Medline]
  57. Burns JP, Mitchell C, Griffith JL, Truog RD. End-of-life care in the pediatric intensive care unit: attitudes and practices of pediatric critical care physicians and nurses. Crit Care Med.2001; 29 :695 –696[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  58. Stevens L, Cook D, Guyatt G, Griffith L, Walter S, McMullin J. Education, ethics, and end-of-life decisions in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med.2002; 30 :290 –296[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  59. Sahler OJZ, Frager G, Levetown M, Cohn FG, Lipson MA. Medical education about end-of-life care in the pediatric setting: principles, challenges, and opportunities. Pediatrics.2000; 105 :575 –584[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Rubenstein J, Unti SM, Winter RJ. Pediatric resident attitudes about technologic support of vegetative patients and the effects of parental input—a longitudinal study. Pediatrics.1994; 94 :8 –12[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Breen CM, Abernethy AP, Abbot KH, Tulsky JA. Conflict associated with decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment in intensive care units. J Gen Intern Med.2001; 16 :283 –289[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  62. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Religious objections to medical care. Pediatrics.1997; 99 :279 –281[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Inwald D, Jakobovits I, Petros A. Brain stem death: managing care when accepted medical guidelines and religious beliefs are in conflict. BMJ.2000; 320 :1266 –1268[Free Full Text]
  64. Karlawish JH, Hall JB. Managing death and dying in the intensive care unit [editorial]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.1997; 155 :1 –2[Web of Science][Medline]
  65. Farrell MM, Levin DL. Brain death in the pediatric patient: historical, sociological, medical, religious, cultural, legal, and ethical considerations. Crit Care Med.1993; 21 :1951 –1964[Web of Science][Medline]
  66. Masri C, Farrel CA, Lacroix J, Rocker G, Shemie SD. Decision making and end-of-life care in critically ill children. J Palliat Care.2000; 16(suppl) :S45 –S52
  67. Wise MG. Psychosocial interventions with patients and families by the healthcare team in critical care. New Horiz.1998; 6 :344 –352
  68. Daaleman TP, VandeCreek L. Placing religion and spirituality in end-of-life care. JAMA.2000; 284 :2514 –2517[Free Full Text]
  69. Hall P, Stone G, Fiset VJ. Palliative care: how can we meet the needs of our multicultural communities. J Palliat Care.1998; 14 :46 –49
  70. Singer PA, Barker G, Bowman KW, et al. Model policy on appropriate use of life-sustaining treatment. Crit Care Med.2001; 29 :187 –191[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  71. Frader J, Thompson A. Ethical issues in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Clin North Am.1994; 41 :1405 –1421[Web of Science][Medline]
  72. Lo B. Improving care near the end of life. Why is it so hard? JAMA.1995; 274 :1634 –1636[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Freyer DR. Children with cancer: special considerations in the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. Med Pediatr Oncol.1992; 20 :136 –142[Web of Science][Medline]
  74. Fleishman AR, Nolan K, Dubler NN, et al. Caring for gravely ill children. Pediatrics.1994; 94 :433 –439[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Whittam EH. Terminal care of the dying child. Cancer.1993; 71 :3450 –3462[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  76. Scanlon C. Euthanasia and nursing practice—right question, wrong answer. N Engl J Med.1996; 334 :1401 –1402[Free Full Text]
  77. Burns JP, Truog RD. Ethical controversies in pediatric critical care. New Horiz.1997; 5 :72 –84[Medline]
  78. Weatherill GG. Pharmacologic symptom control during the withdrawal of life support: lessons in palliative care. AACN Clin Issues.1995; 6 :344 –351[Medline]
  79. Lynn J, Teno JM, Phillips RS, et al, for the SUPPORT Investigators. Perceptions by family members of the dying experience of older and seriously ill patients. Ann Intern Med.1997; 126 :97 –106[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  80. Partridge JC, Wall SN. Analgesia for dying infants whose life support is withdrawn or withheld. Pediatrics.1997; 99 :76 –79[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  81. Wilson WC, Smedira NG, Fink C, MacDowell JA, Luce J. Ordering and administration of sedatives and analgesics during the withholding and withdrawal of Life support from critically ill patients. JAMA.1992; 267 :949 –953[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  82. Wolfe J, Grier HE, Klar N, et al. Symptoms and suffering at the end of life in children with cancer. N Engl J Med.2000; 342 :326 –333[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  83. Faber-Langendoen K. The clinical management of dying patients receiving mechanical ventilation. A survey of physician practice. Chest.1994; 106 :880 –888[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  84. de Leeuw R, de Beaufort AJ, de Kleine MJ, van Harrewijn K, Kollée LA. Foregoing intensive care treatment in newborn infants with extremely poor prognoses. A study in four neonatal intensive care units in Netherlands. J Pediatr.1996; 129 :661 –666[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  85. Truog RD, Burns JP, Mitchell C, Johnson J, Robinson W. Pharmacologic paralysis and withdrawal of mechanical ventilation at the end of life. N Engl J Med.2000; 342 :508 –511[Free Full Text]
  86. Street K, Henderson J, Inwald D, Vandyck W, Greig-Midlane H, Edwards SJL. Ethical debate: the distinction between withdrawing life sustaining treatment under the influence of paralyzing agents and euthanasia: are we treading a fine line? BMJ.2001; 323 :388 –391[Free Full Text]
  87. Brody H, Campbell ML, Faber-Langendoen K, Ogle KS. Withdrawing intensive life-sustaining treatment—recommendations for compassionate clinical management. N Engl J Med.1997; 336 :652 –657[Free Full Text]
  88. Sottile FD. Managing dying patients and paralytic agents. Chest.1995; 108 :887
  89. Hatherill M, Tibby SM, Sykes K, Murdoch IA. Dilemmas exist in withdrawing ventilation from dying children. BMJ.1998; 317 :80[Free Full Text]
  90. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Ethics Advisory Committee. Withholding or Withdrawing Life Saving Treatment in Children: A Framework for Practice. London, UK: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; 1997
  91. Waite A. Withdrawing life sustaining treatment and euthanasia debate. BMJ.2001; 323 :1248[Free Full Text]
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2003 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
K. N. Michelson, T. Koogler, C. Sullivan, M. d. P. Ortega, E. Hall, and J. Frader
Parental Views on Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Therapies in Critically Ill Children
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, November 1, 2009; 163(11): 986 - 992.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
E. Inghelbrecht, J. Bilsen, H. Pereth, J. Ramet, and L. Deliens
Medical End-of-Life Decisions: Experiences and Attitudes of Belgian Pediatric Intensive Care Nurses
Am. J. Crit. Care., March 1, 2009; 18(2): 160 - 168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nurs EthicsHome page
W. Austin, J. Kelecevic, E. Goble, and J. Mekechuk
An Overview of Moral Distress and the Paediatric Intensive Care Team
Nursing Ethics, January 1, 2009; 16(1): 57 - 68.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
P. Ramnarayan, F. Craig, A. Petros, and C. Pierce
Characteristics of deaths occurring in hospitalised children: changing trends
J. Med. Ethics, May 1, 2007; 33(5): 255 - 260.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AM J HOSP PALLIAT CAREHome page
T. Zwerdling, K. C. Hamann, and A. A. Kon
Home pediatric compassionate extubation: bridging intensive and palliative care.
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, May 1, 2006; 23(3): 224 - 228.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
A. M. Vrakking, A. van der Heide, W. F. M. Arts, R. Pieters, E. van der Voort, J. A. C. Rietjens, B. D. Onwuteaka-Philipsen, P. J. van der Maas, and G. van der Wal
Medical End-of-Life Decisions for Children in the Netherlands
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, September 1, 2005; 159(9): 802 - 809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
H. B. Siden
The Emerging Issue of Euthanasia
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, September 1, 2005; 159(9): 887 - 889.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
M Guedj, M Gibert, A Maudet, M T Munoz Sastre, E Mullet, and P C Sorum
The acceptability of ending a patient's life
J. Med. Ethics, June 1, 2005; 31(6): 311 - 317.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Garros, D.
Right arrow Articles by Cox, P. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Garros, D.
Right arrow Articles by Cox, P. N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?