Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a comparative study of the ethical reasoning of physicians and the general public
Open Access
- 1 January 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Critical Care
- Vol. 12 (1), R13
- https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6786
Abstract
Our objective was to investigate whether a consensus exists between the general public and health care providers regarding the reasoning and values at stake on the subject of life-sustaining treatment. A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of members of the adult population (n = 989) and to a random sample of intensive care doctors and neurosurgeons (n = 410) practicing in Sweden in 2004. The questionnaire was based on a case involving a severely ill patient and presented arguments for and against withholding and withdrawing treatment, and providing treatment that might hasten death. Approximately 70% of the physicians and 51% of the general public responded. A majority of doctors (82.3%) stated that they would withhold treatment, whereas a minority of the general public (40.2%) would do so; the arguments forwarded (for instance, belief that the first task of health care is to save life) and considerations regarding quality of life differed significantly between the two groups. Most physicians (94.1%) and members of the general public (77.7%) were prepared to withdraw treatment, and most (95.1% of physicians and 82% of members of the general public) agreed that sedation should be provided. There are indeed considerable differences in how physicians and the general public assess and reason in critical care situations, but the more hopelessly ill the patient became the more the groups' assessments tended to converge, although they prioritized different arguments. In order to avoid unnecessary dispute and miscommunication, it is important that health care providers be aware of the public's views, expectations, and preferences.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Understanding and changing attitudes toward withdrawal and withholding of life support in the intensive care unitCritical Care Medicine, 2006
- Attitudes of European physicians, nurses, patients, and families regarding end-of-life decisions: the ETHICATT studyIntensive Care Medicine, 2006
- Forgoing life sustaining treatments: differences and similarities between North America and EuropeActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2006
- The impact of regional culture on intensive care end of life decision making: an Israeli perspective from the ETHICUS studyJournal of Medical Ethics, 2006
- Who Has Life-Sustaining Therapy Withdrawn After Injury?The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 2005
- Nurse involvement in end-of-life decision making: the ETHICUS StudyIntensive Care Medicine, 2005
- Terri Schiavo — A Tragedy CompoundedNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Early surgery versus initial conservative treatment in patients with spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haematomas in the International Surgical Trial in Intracerebral Haemorrhage (STICH): a randomised trialThe Lancet, 2005
- Dying Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: Forgoing Treatment, Maintaining CareAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2000
- Withdrawal of life support – who should decide?Intensive Care Medicine, 1999