WITHDRAWAL OR WITHHOLDING OF TREATMENT AT THE END OF LIFE - RESULTS OF A NATIONWIDE STUDY

被引:22
作者
PIJNENBORG, L
van der Maas, PJ
KARDAUN, JWPF
GLERUM, JJ
VANDELDEN, JJM
LOOMAN, CWN
机构
[1] STAT NETHERLANDS, VOORBURG, NETHERLANDS
[2] UNIV UTRECHT, CTR BIOETH & HLTH LAW, UTRECHT, NETHERLANDS
关键词
D O I
10.1001/archinte.155.3.286
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment (nontreatment decisions) become increasingly important because they have to be made more frequently and more explicitly. This nationwide study provides information on the occurrence and background of these nontreatment decisions. Methods: Three studies were undertaken: interviews with 405 physicians, 5197 answered questionnaires concerning deceased persons, and information about 2257 deaths collected by a prospective study. Results: Of all deaths, 30% appeared to be sudden and unexpected. In 39% of all nonsudden deaths, a nontreatment decision was made. This percentage varied by specialty (28% to 55%). Nontreatment decisions were made more often in older female patients. The decisions were made at the explicit request of the patient (19%), after discussion with the patient or after a previous wish (22%), or without any involvement of the patient (59%). Of this last group, 87% of patients were not competent at the time of the decision. In 24% of cases of nontreatment, life was shortened by at least a week. Of all physicians interviewed, 56% had changed their attitude since the beginning of their practice, most of them toward more nontreatment decisions at the end of life. Conclusions: Nontreatment decisions are made frequently in medical practice. Most often the physician has to weigh medical and nonmedical burdens and benefits. For this to be done properly, the patient should be involved whenever possible. Other requirements are optimal palliative treatment, better prognostic knowledge, consultation of other specialists, and the absence of defensive motives.
引用
收藏
页码:286 / 292
页数:7
相关论文
共 25 条
[21]   DECIDING NOT TO RESUSCITATE IN DUTCH HOSPITALS [J].
VANDELDEN, JJM ;
van der Maas, PJ ;
PIJNENBORG, L ;
LOOMAN, CWN .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 1993, 19 (04) :200-205
[22]   THE PHYSICIANS RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD HOPELESSLY ILL PATIENTS - A 2ND LOOK [J].
WANZER, SH ;
FEDERMAN, DD ;
ADELSTEIN, SJ ;
CASSEL, CK ;
CASSEM, EH ;
CRANFORD, RE ;
HOOK, EW ;
LO, B ;
MOERTEL, CG ;
SAFAR, P ;
STONE, A ;
VANEYS, J .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1989, 320 (13) :844-849
[23]   DECISIONS TO ABATE LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT FOR NONAUTONOMOUS PATIENTS - ETHICAL STANDARDS AND LEGAL LIABILITY FOR PHYSICIANS AFTER CRUZAN [J].
WEIR, RF ;
GOSTIN, L .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 264 (14) :1846-1853
[24]   WITHHOLDING MEDICAL-TREATMENT FROM THE SEVERELY DEMENTED PATIENT - DECISIONAL PROCESSES AND COST IMPLICATIONS [J].
WRAY, N ;
BRODY, B ;
BAYER, T ;
BOISAUBIN, E ;
DAVILA, F ;
DRESSER, R ;
DUNN, JK ;
ENGELHARDT, HT ;
HALEY, H ;
HAMILTON, JD ;
NIEFIELD, S ;
SHELP, E ;
SCHEURICH, J .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1988, 148 (09) :1980-1984
[25]  
1992, END LIFE MED PRACTIC