Abstract
Background: Decisions about deactivation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are complicated. Unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) orders (against patient/family wishes) have been ethically justified in cases of medical futility. Unilateral deactivation of ICDs may be seen as a logical extension of a unilateral DNR order. Methods: 60 respondents who had an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy ICD (CRT-D) were interviewed at a quaternary medical center outpatient electrophysiology practice. Survey questions addressed the inclusion of ICD deactivation in advanced directives, whether ICD deactivation constitutes physician-assisted suicide, and whether unilateral ICD deactivation can be ethically justified. The average age was 59 (range 23-89), and 70% were male. Of the respondents, 35% had ICDs, and 65% had CRT-Ds. Respondents had had their devices for an average of 6.74 years (range 0.11-25). 82% of respondents were Caucasian, 15% were African American and 3% were Hispanic. Results: Only 15% of patients had thought about device deactivation if they were to develop a serious illness from which they were not expected to recover, and single respondents were more likely to have considered this point (38%, p=0.03). A small majority (53%) had advance directives, and only one mentioned what to do with the device. Only 3% had discussed device management with clinicians. Most (55%) believed turning off a patient’s pacemaker was no different than not performing CPR or administering external defibrillation. A majority (77%) did not consider device deactivation in accordance with patient wishes to be physician-assisted suicide. A majority (78%) responded that it was not ethical/moral for doctors to deactivate ICDs against patients’ wishes. Conclusion: In an era of cost-consciousness and scrutiny of resources, management of ICDs and CRT-Ds as patients near the end of their lives create ethical dilemmas. Few patients consider device deactivation at end of life, though a large majority believes that unilateral deactivation is not ethical or moral, even in the setting of medical futility. Advance care planning for these patients should address device deactivation.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.