Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39258675›Full record

ArticleCritical care science2024

Position statement of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions in the context of palliative care.

Edison Iglesias de Oliveira Vidal, Sabrina Correa da Costa Ribeiro, Maria Júlia Kovacs, Luciano Máximo da Silva, Daniele Pompei Sacardo, Simone Brasil de Oliveira Iglesias, Josimário João da Silva, Cinara Carneiro Neves, Diego Lima Ribeiro, Fernanda Gomes Lopes

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Edison Iglesias de Oliveira VidalGeriatrics Discipline, Internal Medicine Department, Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho" - Botucatu (SP), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1573-4678
Sabrina Correa da Costa RibeiroIntensive Care Discipline, Internal Medicine Department, Universidade Federal do Ceará - Fortaleza (CE), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1182-8415
Maria Júlia KovacsPsicology Institute, Universidade de São Paulo - São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1152-696X
Luciano Máximo da SilvaPalliative Care Service, Hospital Santo Antônio - Blumenau (SC), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9231-6517
Daniele Pompei SacardoBioetics Discipline, Public Health Department, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Campinas (SP), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2688-1905
Simone Brasil de Oliveira IglesiasPediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hospital São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo - São Paulo (SP), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9668-4985
Josimário João da SilvaMedical Sciences Center, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - Recife (PE), Brazsil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7087-5721
Cinara Carneiro NevesHospital Infantil Albert Sabin - Fortaleza (CE), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8397-7444
Diego Lima RibeiroBioetics Discipline, Public Health Department, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Campinas (SP), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0731-9308
Fernanda Gomes LopesInstituto Escutha - Fortaleza (CE), Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1661-3816

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.

Indexed as

Palliative CareWithholding TreatmentBrazilHumansLife Support CareMedical Futility

Identifiers

PMID39258675
PMCPMC11463991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.