There are conflicting signals about benefits and burdens of invasive therapies for elderly with life-threatening illness. On one hand there are those concerned that routine application of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and intensive care for elderly patients in acute crises may serve only to prolong dying process and deprive patient of a dignified death. An editorial in New England Journal of Medicine recently claimed that the very high suicide rate in older Americans is due partly to concern that they may be unable to stop treatment if hospitalized. Some people now fear living more than dying, because they dread becoming prisoners of technology.[1] Others are more concerned that elderly patients may be deprived of access to therapies that could both extend and enhance their lives because of failure to recognize benefits that such treatment can bring.[2] These advocates for elderly emphasize that although fewer of an unselected group of elderly patients may respond well to treatment than would younger patients, many suitably selected elderly patients do well. It has been suggested that absolute benefit to these patients is more relevant than whether such benefit is statistically less probable than for younger patients.[3] Such advocates counsel against age as a selection factor per se, pointing out that proper influence of age is as a marker for factors that may adversely affect outcome, such as reduced physiological reserve and comorbidity. It is these factors that should affect decision as to whether treatment is likely to be worth while, not age itself. Moreover, expectation of life in patients who have already reached age of sixty-five years or more is considerably greater than is often realized, making extension of life resulting from active therapeutic intervention often well worth while. Therapeutic technologies fall into three categories: lifesaving (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, emergency surgery, intensive care), life-sustaining (dialysis, mechanical ventilation, tube feeding), and life-enhancing (mostly surgical interventions that improve quality of life). Decisions about whether to employ interventions that aim to save or sustain life are affected by way in which patients are categorized. There are those who, being previously well, have a sudden unexpected crisis--a heart attack, stroke, or head injury. In such instances an initial trial of treatment will almost always be justified before any decision is made about whether to continue treatment. Quite different are patients with progressive disorders in whom a predictable crisis or relapse occurs and about whom some prior discussion about limiting future treatment may have been held with patient and family. These will include patients with progressive organ failure--of heart, lungs, brain, kidneys, or liver--and those with advanced cancer or dementia. A third category are those already disabled by progressive disease who fall victim to an unpredictable accident or acute illness unrelated to their existing disease (such as severely demented or vegetative patients). In each of these categories there will be patients who are competent and can participate in decisions about their treatment, and others who cannot. Decisions to initiate or continue with technologies that save or sustain life in patients of any age should depend on patient's preference, once expected benefits of intervention have been balanced against possible burdens. This preference can be properly exercised only if patient is fully informed about implications of various treatment options. Intervention may be deemed inappropriate if, after explanation about its likely effect, it is unwanted by patient or surrogate. If severity of illness is such that there is unlikely to be a favorable response to treatment, or if at best it will only briefly postpone a fatal outcome, it may be unfair even to offer such treatment as an option. …
Read full abstract