Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Biesen, W.
Right arrow Articles by Vanderhaegen, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Van Biesen, W.
Right arrow Articles by Vanderhaegen, B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Nephrol Dial Transplant (2004) 19: 536-540
Nephrol Dial Transplant Vol. 19 No. 3 (c) ERA-EDTA 2004; all rights reserved


Editorial Comment

From curing to caring: one character change makes a world of difference. Issues related to withholding/withdrawing renal replacement therapy (RRT) from patients with important co-morbidities

Wim Van Biesen1, Norbert Lameire1, Nic Veys1 and Bert Vanderhaegen2

1Renal Division and 2Hospital Ethical Committee, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Wim Van Biesen, Department of Nephrology, University Hospital Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Email: wim.vanbiesen@ugent.be

Keywords: co-morbidity; ethics; renal replacement therapy; withdrawal

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.



   Introduction
 
The widespread availability of renal replacement therapy (RRT), the technical improvements in RRT techniques and the improved survival of patients with associated important co-morbidities, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, have led to a situation where, technically speaking, virtually every patient can be accepted for RRT. It appears that widespread access to RRT has shifted the initial dilemma of which patients should be selected for RRT (positive selection) to the question of which patients should not be initiated on RRT (negative selection). This ethical problem is not only limited to the single patient level (will this particular patient benefit from RRT), but also relates to the community level, as RRT places an important burden on the health care budget, and choices have to be made in selecting health care priorities in some countries (the problem of sustainable development). In addition, survival on RRT has improved. The majority of end-stage renal . . . [Full Text of this Article]



   Decision analysis: to treat or not to treat
 


   About curing and caring
 


   A caring approach with a trial of RRT
 


   A caring approach to withdrawing RRT in chronic RRT patients
 


   Conclusion
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
C. Couchoud, M. Labeeuw, O. Moranne, V. Allot, V. Esnault, L. Frimat, B. Stengel, and for the French Renal Epidemiology and Information
A clinical score to predict 6-month prognosis in elderly patients starting dialysis for end-stage renal disease
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2009; 24(5): 1553 - 1561.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NDT PlusHome page
G. Baer, N. Lameire, and W. Van Biesen
Late referral of patients with end-stage renal disease: an in-depth review and suggestions for further actions
NDT Plus, April 29, 2009; (2009) sfp050v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]