Resuscitation Research: Future Directions and Ethical Issues

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation research is a vital area of research that has made significant contributions to medical care over the last several decades. Abundant information currently exists in the medical literature, as a result of research in the areas of cardiac arrest and outcomes, physiology of cardiac arrest, pharmacologic treatments, mechanical interventions, and societal and ethical issues. Despite numerous clinical trials demonstrating physiologic benefit of various interventions, few interventions have had as much impact on outcomes of cardiac arrest as have improvements in out-of-hospital response times and rapid availability of medical treatment. Although abundant information exists regarding physiologic aspects of resuscitation, relatively little information exists about ethical, psychological, and social aspects of resuscitation. In addition to attempts to improve outcomes of cardiac arrest, researchers should also strive to improve the experiences of patients and families involved. These realities provide future strategies and directions for the best use of resuscitation research resources; although physiologic and pharmacologic research will always have significant roles in the improvement of medical care, the rapid delivery of out-of-hospital care and ethical issues will be indispensable areas of research focus in the future

Ethics of Practicing Medical Procedures on Newly Dead and Nearly Dead Patients

OBJECTIVE: To examine the ethical issues raised by physicians performing, for skill development, medically nonindicated invasive medical procedures on newly dead and dying patients. DESIGN: Literature review; issue analysis employing current normative ethical obligations, and evaluation against moral rules and utilitarian assessments manifest in other common perimortem practices. RESULTS: Practicing medical procedures for training purposes is not uncommon among physicians in training. However, empiric information is limited or absent evaluating the effects of this practice on physician competence and ethics, assessing public attitudes toward practicing medical procedures and requirements for consent, and discerning the effects of a consent requirement on physicians' clinical competence. Despite these informational gaps, there is an obligation to secure consent for training activities on newly and nearly dead patients based on contemporary norms for informed consent and family respect. Paradigms of consent-dependent societal benefits elsewhere in health care support our determination that the benefits from physicians practicing procedures does not justify setting aside the informed consent requirement. CONCLUSION: Current ethical norms do not support the practice of using newly and nearly dead patients for training in invasive medical procedures absent prior consent by the patient or contemporaneous surrogate consent. Performing an appropriately consented training procedure is ethically acceptable when done under competent supervision and with appropriate professional decorum. The ethics of training on the newly and nearly dead remains an insufficiently examined area of medical training