[Should dialysis be for all? Yes indeed!].

Clinically compromised patients who must undergo chronic dialysis are, in general, at risk because the procedure can be difficult to perform and give poor results in terms of survival and of rehabilitation. However, it is dialysis of the very elderly which is routinely characterized by misgivings about the indication for and limits of the technique. Patients older than 75 years of age currently represent more than 35% of the population that begin dialysis in most European registries. In our center at least 30 very old patients begin dialysis every year, which represents 45% of the total incident patients. About 30% of these patients, because of severe physical and/or mental disability, often associated with a situation of social deprivation, rarely achieve true clinical stability and depend upon outside caregivers in order to survive. The treatment of these patients strains the resources of the health and social structure, as well as the Nephrology Division, whose organization can be disrupted by their urgent needs, such as hospitalization, transportation, convalescent care, etc. Despite these difficulties and a mean survival of only 28 months, the global clinical conditions of patients older than 75 years of age are not much different than patients in the age bracket of 65 to 75 years. In fact, excluding patients older than 85 years of age (a category which geriatricians consider separately), the survival and rehabilitation of the very elderly appear similar to those of patients 65 to 75 years of age. Many of the clinical problems of the dialyzed elderly, such as sensory, mental and functional impairment, are the result of advanced age per se rather than of uremia or of dialysis. Therefore, ethical considerations of dialysis and of health maintenance in the very elderly are similar to those presented by patients who are afflicted by other serious diseases such as cancer, heart failure, or extensive stroke. As a result of modern technology and the advancement of our clinical knowledge, it is difficult to conceive of a true motive to not dialyze a patient--whether very elderly or any other patient in critical conditions--except in situations of futility or the impossibility to attain a reasonable quality of life. Thus, the true nature of the debate regarding the indications or the limits of dialysis in developed countries is not economic, technical nor clinical, but ethical. The challenge for the Nephrologist is to balance the need to alleviate human suffering and the institutional support that society can offer, which is the "bottom line" which unifies dialysis for the very elderly with every other therapy which prolongs life in tenuous conditions.