Risk factors and clinical outcomes between fungal and bacterial keratitis: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE: Thirty years ago, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was primarily developed for otherwise healthy individuals who experienced sudden cardiac arrest. Today, CPR is widely viewed as an emergency procedure that can be attempted on any person who undergoes a cessation of cardiorespiratory function. Therefore, the appropriateness of CPR has been questioned as a matter of the outcome, the patient's preferences, and the cost. The objective of this article is to analyse ethical issues in prehospital resuscitation. ARGUMENTS: CPR is bound by moral considerations that surround the use of any medical treatment. According to Beauchamp and Childress, the hierarchy of justification in biomedical ethics consists of ethical theories, principles, rules, and particular judgements and actions. The decision to start CPR is based on the medical judgement that a person is suffering from circulatory arrest. The decision is justified by the moral rule that the victim of a cardiac arrest has the right to survive and to receive CPR. Moral rules are more specific to contexts and are based on ethical principles. The principle of beneficence means the provision of benefits for the promotion of welfare. Talking about beneficence in resuscitation means once again reporting stories of success, as many victims of pre- and in-hospital sudden death have been saved in the past. Nevertheless, resuscitative efforts still remain unsuccessful in the majority of cases, involving the principle of nonmaleficence. There is potential harm in CPR. Survivors may recover cardiac function, but sustain severe hypoxic brain damage, at worst surviving without awakening for months or years. In particular, post-traumatic CPR is associated with an extremely poor outcome, leading to the issue of futility. However, futility should be defined in a strict fashion, as there might be an individual chance of survival. The principle of respect for autonomy means the right of a patient to accept or reject medical treatment, which continues in emergency conditions and after the patient has lost consciousness. The time frame in CPR requires medical decision-making within seconds, and CPR is usually initiated without the patient's involvement. If the patient's wish's can be ascertained later on, life-sustaining therapies might be withdrawn at the time. Terminally ill but still competent patients should be encouraged to write a no-CPR document, which does not deny patients relief from severe symptoms, but might facilitate withholding resuscitative efforts at the scene. The principle of justice affects priorities in the allocation of health care resources. The decision made for a particular patient might delay or prevent emergency treatment in other patients who could receive greater benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The standard of care remains the prompt initiation of CPR. However, ethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice have to be applied in the unique setting of emergency medicine. Physicians have to consider the therapeutic efficacy of CPR, the potential risks, and the patient's preferences.