Is withdrawing treatment really more problematic than withholding treatment?

There is a concern that as a result of COVID-19 there will be a shortage of ventilators for patients requiring respiratory support. This concern has resulted in significant debate about whether it is appropriate to withdraw ventilation from one patient in order to provide it to another patient who may benefit more. The current advice available to doctors appears to be inconsistent, with some suggesting withdrawal of treatment is more serious than withholding, while others suggest that this distinction should not be made. We argue that there is no ethically relevant difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment and that suggesting otherwise may have problematic consequences. If doctors are discouraged from withdrawing treatment, concern about a future shortage may make them reluctant to provide ventilation to patients who are unlikely to have a successful outcome. This may result in underutilisation of available resources. A national policy is urgently required to provide doctors with guidance about how patients should be prioritised to ensure the maximum benefit is derived from limited resources.

Right Brain: Withholding treatment from a child with an epileptic encephalomyopathy

The case of Charlie Gard, an infant who was hospitalized in England due to a mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome that led to an epileptic encephalomyopathy, was highly publicized. Though Charlie's parents lobbied for him to receive experimental nucleoside replacement therapy as a desperate effort to save him, this request was denied, and after a lengthy legal battle, he died in late July 2017. We discuss the ethical considerations and consequences of this case.