Skip to main content

Is Deactivating a Cardiac Pacemaker Euthanasia?



“He’d feel okay about not replacing the pacemaker’s battery when it ran down, he said. But turning it off, he said, would be “too active.” Later he would tell me that it would have been “like putting a pillow over your father’s head.”
These are the words of Katy Butler in her book “Knocking on Heaven’s Door – The Path to a Better Way of Death” in which she writes about her families ordeal in trying to have her father’s pacemaker. It is also something that I’m hearing more about, in particular health care professionals refusing to deactivate a pacemaker due to concerns that doing so would be akin to euthenasia.

Separating Euthanasia and Deactivation

Why is pacemaker deactivation neither physician-assisted suicide nor euthanasia? I think one of the easiest ways to look at it is by asking what is the intent of a particular intervention and what are the means that will be used to meet that intent. For both physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia the outcome that is intended is the relief of suffering through death.  However, the primary intent in pacemaker deactivation is to respect the patient and surrogates request to discontinue the unwanted treatment. The intent is not to terminate the patient’s life, although death may be an anticipated outcome in those who are at least significantly pacer dependent.  Additionally and very importantly, death is not the means to meeting the intent of deactivation.

If it isn’t euthanasia, is it ethical to deactivate a pacemaker?

It is very clear that many physicians have moral distress over deactivation of a pacemaker. Studies have shown that many physicians view cardiovascular implantable electronic devices as distinct from other life-sustaining therapies. Furthermore there is a view that pacemakers are different from AICDs or other medical interventions commonly withdrawn as the end of life, as a pacemaker replaces a natural cardiac physiology, it is automatic, it is implanted, and its action is not felt by the patient.

The problem with this viewpoint is that there is very little to support it either ethically or legally. Patients have the right to refuse or withdraw treatments, even if the treatment prolongs life and immediate death would follow a decision not to use it. This applies to ventilatory support, dialysis, AICDs, or pacemakers.   Nor does it matter if a patient has an underlying rhythm that is incompatible with life. If this were true, ventilator withdrawal or discontinuation of dialysis would also be limited to those who are healthy enough to survive extubation or dialysis discontinuation.  

Furthermore, if it is believed that the patient could have initially refused placement of a pacemaker, there is little justification that she (or her surrogate) can now no longer discontinue it. Continuation of her life was equally dependent previously on the placement of the pacemaker as it is now on continuation of the pacemaker function.

What to do when a health care provider refuses deactivation?

Send them to the experts. I would print them out the recent expert consensus statement from Heart Rhythm Society written in written in collaboration with representatives the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Geriatrics Society (AGS), the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM); the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA).   Key points from this very in-depth statement include:

  1. "A patient with decision-making capacity has the legal right to refuse or request the withdrawal of any medical treatment or intervention, regardless of whether s/he is terminally ill, and regardless of whether the treatment prolongs life and its withdrawal results in death."
  2. "When a patient lacks capacity, his/her legally-defined surrogate decision- maker has the same right to refuse or request the withdrawal of treatment as the patient would have if the patient had decision-making capacity."
  3. "Legally, carrying out a request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment is neither physician-assisted suicide nor euthanasia."
  4. "The right to refuse or request the withdrawal of a treatment is a personal right of the patient and does not depend on the characteristics of the particular treatment involved (i.e., CIEDs). Therefore, no treatment, including CIED therapies, has unique ethical or legal status."


by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)


NOTE: Comment on any of the pacemaker posts this week or talk about it on twitter and you'll be entered into a drawing to win one of the paperback versions of Katy Butler's book "Knocking on Heaven's Door: The Path to a Better Way of Death."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …