D. Reis Miranda – författare

Intensive Care Medicine has been continuously growing and expanding, culturally, technically and geographically. Monitoring and instrumentation are continuously improving and more and more hospitals are getting Intensive Care facilities. The costs have proportionally increased over the years, so that ICUs represent today a major cost for health structures. Since the available resources are limited, a real need is emerging to set the limits and indications of Intensive Care. It is understood that the problem not only involves medical considerations, but also ethical and economical aspects of the utmost importance. For the first time in Europe, this book edited by Reis Miranda and his colleagues tackles systematically the many structural aspects of the European Intensive Care. The organisation and financing of health care in the Old Continent is deeply different from the American one, and the results and consequent proposals obtained in the USA cannot simply be transferred to this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Weare extremely pleased to welcome this first European attempt to discuss the Intensive Care problem. It lays no claims to giving definite replies in a continuously developing field, but it will surely become the basis for future discussions and proposals. I am particularly happy that this work has mainly developed within the European Society of Intensive Care, whose final target is to ensure a common standard of therapy in our old Europe, beyond national differences. We warmly congratulate the authors, and I am sure that their work will find wide diffusion and consent.

From the viewpoint of a health economist, the intensive care unit (leU) is a particularly fascinating phenomenon. It is the epitome of "high-tech" medicine and frequently portrayed as the place where life-saving miracles are routinely wrought. But the popular imagina­ tion is also caught up in the darker side, when agonizing decisions have to be made to avoid futile and inhuman continuation of expen­ sive treatments. My analytical interests led me to approach these issues by asking what the evidence tells us about which leu activities are very bene­ ficial in relationship to their costs and which are not. This quickly translates into a slightly different question, namely, which patients are most appropriately treated in an leu and which not. Unfor­ tunately, it is very hard to answer these questions because it has pro­ ved very difficult to investigate these issues in the manner which is now regarded as the "gold standard:'' namely by conducting rando­ mized clinical trials or alternative courses of action. I think this is a pity, and I am not at all convinced that it would be unethical to do so in many cases, because there is wide variation in practice and ge­ nuine doubt as to which practices are best -the two conditions that need to be fulfilled before such a trial is justifiable.

From the viewpoint of a health economist, the intensive care unit (leU) is a particularly fascinating phenomenon. It is the epitome of "high-tech" medicine and frequently portrayed as the place where life-saving miracles are routinely wrought. But the popular imagina­ tion is also caught up in the darker side, when agonizing decisions have to be made to avoid futile and inhuman continuation of expen­ sive treatments. My analytical interests led me to approach these issues by asking what the evidence tells us about which leu activities are very bene­ ficial in relationship to their costs and which are not. This quickly translates into a slightly different question, namely, which patients are most appropriately treated in an leu and which not. Unfor­ tunately, it is very hard to answer these questions because it has pro­ ved very difficult to investigate these issues in the manner which is now regarded as the "gold standard:' namely by conducting rando­ mized clinical trials or alternative courses of action. I think this is a pity, and I am not at all convinced that it would be unethical to do so in many cases, because there is wide variation in practice and ge­ nuine doubt as to which practices are best -the two conditions that need to be fulfilled before such a trial is justifiable.

Intensive Care Medicine has been continuously growing and expanding, culturally, technically and geographically. Monitoring and instrumentation are continuously improving and more and more hospitals are getting Intensive Care facilities. The costs have proportionally increased over the years, so that ICUs represent today a major cost for health structures. Since the available resources are limited, a real need is emerging to set the limits and indications of Intensive Care. It is understood that the problem not only involves medical considerations, but also ethical and economical aspects of the utmost importance. For the first time in Europe, this book edited by Reis Miranda and his colleagues tackles systematically the many structural aspects of the European Intensive Care. The organisation and financing of health care in the Old Continent is deeply different from the American one, and the results and consequent proposals obtained in the USA cannot simply be transferred to this side of the Atlantic Ocean. Weare extremely pleased to welcome this first European attempt to discuss the Intensive Care problem. It lays no claims to giving definite replies in a continuously developing field, but it will surely become the basis for future discussions and proposals. I am particularly happy that this work has mainly developed within the European Society of Intensive Care, whose final target is to ensure a common standard of therapy in our old Europe, beyond national differences. We warmly congratulate the authors, and I am sure that their work will find wide diffusion and consent.