Again, there are variations on the legal requirements in different jurisdictions. Good medical practice would include consultation with relatives, partners and carers to ascertain what the expected wishes of the patient might be. In England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 has brought a legal obligation for clinicians to take into account the views of anyone named or appointed with power of attorney by the patient for this purpose, their carers, or any deputy appointed by a court.[25]
In an unexpected or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, when the patient cannot consent to treatment, the assumption has to be that resuscitation should be performed. Death can be verified by any appropriately qualified person, but this is usually done by a doctor, and in the United Kingdom only a doctor who has provided care during the last illness and who has seen the deceased within fourteen days of death or after death can sign a death certificate. If someone is found to have collapsed and died, the emergency services are still obliged to attempt resuscitation as they cannot in general immediately ascertain the underlying condition of the victim. Of course if a person has been dead for some time, for several hours or longer, death will be obvious and resuscitation attempts will not be appropriate.
Age itself should not be a deciding factor when discussing whether to resuscitate someone who has collapsed, when discussing whether to continue resuscitation attempts, or when discussing whether a patient would wish to be resuscitated or not from a cardio-pulmonary arrest. In general, the success of any medical treatment decreases with age, but there is no specific cutoff point concerning the success of resuscitation from cardiopulmonary arrest. Furthermore, clinical policies should not be ageist in terms of specifying treatments that are not provided to people over a certain age, unless there is very good medical evidence to suggest a lack of benefit. In the medical literature about resuscitation, there is no evidence that the outcome is dependent on being under a certain chronological age, or that failure occurs over a certain age. The benefits of most medical treatments depend on the general condition of the patient, therefore discussions about the value or futility of resuscitation should be based on that rather than the patient’s chronological age.
This is a reason why the most useful information when deciding whether to undertake or continue cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is the medical history. If, for example, a patient has presented with an exacerbation of breathlessness from chronic, extensive and end-stage respiratory failure, uses home oxygen and is house-bound as a consequence of their condition, then resuscitation from a cardiorespiratory arrest is less likely to be successful, and the prospect of a full recovery is unlikely. If such a patient is placed on a mechanical ventilator to take over their breathing and oxygenation, it could be very difficult to wean them off. If, on the other hand, a patient has been healthy and active until recently, and presents with respiratory failure due to extensive pneumonia, then resuscitation is more likely to be successful, and the chances of a full recovery are good. It is often the current or future quality of life that is the influential factor when assessments about resuscitation are being made by clinicians and families or carers on behalf of a patient.
A successful resuscitation can be evident within minutes, but it may not be evident for perhaps thirty minutes or more that resuscitation has been unsuccessful; basic and advanced life-support measures can maintain the breathing and circulation for this length of time and longer. Decisions about when to stop resuscitation attempts are usually made by an experienced doctor when there has been no response, and there is no treatable or reversible cause of the initial collapse. As previously observed, resuscitation should be continued for longer than usual in specific circumstances, such as in the case of children or where the collapse has been caused by electrocution, drowning, hypothermia, poisoning, or anaphylactic shock.
Advanced Decisions, advanced directives, or ‘living wills’ can be made to specify treatment that a person might or might not want in the future. There are three legal requirements for Advanced Decisions to be honoured – existence, validity and applicability – and these have been set out for England and Wales in the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
For an Advanced Decision to be considered existent, it must be put down in writing, and be signed by the patient and a witness. For it to be valid, the Advanced Decision must not have been withdrawn or overridden by a subsequent Lasting Power of Attorney, and the patient must not have acted in a way that is clearly inconsistent with the Advanced Decision. To be applicable, the person must have had the mental capacity to make the decision about the proposed treatment at the time of writing. The Advanced Decision will not be applicable to treatments or circumstances that are not specified in the document. If there is any doubt or dispute about whether a particular advanced decision meets all the requirements, action may be taken to prevent the death or serious deterioration of the patient, whilst the dispute is referred to legal authorities. It is always very difficult to anticipate every possible scenario with regard to your health and healthcare, and therefore advanced decisions can be very limited in scope, especially when a patient presents with a new illness or condition.
Parents will almost always ask to be present when their child is being resuscitated. Historically, as with most medical procedures, relatives have been kept outside when cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is being performed. However, there are differing views between the public and healthcare professionals and the Resuscitation Council has published a useful document on their website about this issue.[26]
From the relatives’ and partners’ point of view, being present may help them come to terms with the serious illness or death of a loved one, especially when they can see that everything medically appropriate has been done. The disadvantage is that the reality of resuscitation may prove distressing, particularly if it is traumatic or if they are uninformed. Furthermore, they may physically or emotionally hinder the staff involved in the resuscitation attempt. However, it seems likely that for many relatives it is more distressing to be separated from their family member during these critical moments than to witness them. From the patient’s point of view, most would probably want to have their family present but it would be unusual for the patient to have expressed an advanced directive stipulating the inclusion of specific relatives, partners, carers or friends. For the clinical staff undertaking resuscitation, the presence of relatives could increase stress, affect decision-making, and affect the performance of the staff involved. On the other hand, verbal or physical interference by a relative could be prevented by close supervision and restriction of numbers.
Progressives believe that relatives or partners should be given the opportunity to be with their loved ones at this time, and proper provision must be made for those who indicate that they wish to stay. If resuscitation is to be witnessed by relatives, partners or carers, it is essential that they be supported throughout by appropriately trained clinical staff, and that the resuscitation team leader is prepared for and aware of their presence. Every hospital should have a written policy about the procedure to be followed when relatives, partners or carers request to be present during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and this would normally be the responsibility of the local Resuscitation Committee.