Discrepancies in end-of-life decisions between elderly patients and their named surrogates.
(25/32)
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to determine the attitudes of Asian elderly patients towards invasive life support measures, the degree of patient-surrogate concordance in end-of-life decision making, the extent to which patients desire autonomy over end-of-life medical decisions, the reasons behind patients' and surrogates' decisions, and the main factors influencing patients' and surrogates' decision-making processes. We hypothesize that there is significant patient-surrogate discordance in end-of-life decision making in our community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient and surrogate were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which the patient experienced gradual functional decline in the community before being admitted for life-threatening pneumonia. It was explained that the outcome was likely to be poor even with intensive care and each patient-surrogate pair was subsequently interviewed separately on their opinions of extraordinary life support using a standardised questionnaire. Both parties were blinded to each other's replies. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients and their surrogate decision-makers were interviewed. Twenty-eight (93.3%) patients and 20 (66.7%) surrogates rejected intensive care. Patient-surrogate concurrence was found in 20 pairs (66.7%). Twenty-four (80.0%) patients desired autonomy over their decision. The patients' and surrogates' top reasons for rejecting intensive treatment were treatment-related discomfort, poor prognosis and financial cost. Surrogates' top reasons for selecting intensive treatment were the hope of recovery, the need to complete final tasks and the sanctity of life. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients desire autonomy over critical care issues. Relying on the surrogates' decisions to initiate treatment may result in treatment against patients' wishes in up to one-third of critically ill elderly patients. (+info)
Implementation of Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment in nursing homes in California: evaluation of a novel statewide dissemination mechanism.
(26/32)
Advance directives have been widely endorsed, and empiric work has taken place that can aid clinicians in the appropriate use of validated documents. This report reviews philosophic and methodologic issues and offers practical illustrations. Despite the evidence that advance directives can work, there are serious barriers to their actual use. Therefore, these barriers are evaluated and potential solutions suggested. (+info)
Betting your life: an argument against certain advance directives.
(31/32)
In the last decade the use of advance directives or living wills has become increasingly common. This paper is concerned with those advance directives in which the user opts for withdrawal of active treatment in a future situation where he or she is incompetent to consent to conservative management but where that incompetence is potentially reversible. This type of directive assumes that the individual is able accurately to determine the type of treatment he or she would have adopted had he or she been competent in this future scenario. The paper argues that this assumption is flawed and provides theoretical and empirical evidence for this. If the assumption is false, and those taking out advance directives do not realise this, then the ethical bases for the use of these advance directives-the maximisation of the individual's autonomy and minimisation of harm-are undermined. The paper concludes that this form of advance directive should be abolished. (+info)
Would physicians override a do-not-resuscitate order when a cardiac arrest is iatrogenic?
(32/32)
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether physicians would be more likely to override a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order when a hypothetical cardiac arrest is iatrogenic. DESIGN: Mailed survey of 358 practicing physicians. SETTING: A university-affiliated community teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Of 358 physicians surveyed, 285 (80%) responded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Each survey included three case descriptions in which a patient negotiates a DNR order, and then suffers a cardiac arrest. The arrests were caused by the patient's underlying disease, by an unexpected complication of treatment, and by the physician's error. Physicians were asked to rate the likelihood that they would attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation for each case description. Physicians indicated that they would be unlikely to override a DNR order when the arrest was caused by the patient's underlying disease (mean score 2.55 on a scale from 1 "certainly would not" to 7 "certainly would"). Physicians reported they would be much more likely to resuscitate when the arrest was due to a complication of treatment (5.24 vs 2. 55; difference 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.44, 2.91; p <.001), and that they would be even more likely to resuscitate when the arrest was due to physician error (6.32 vs 5.24; difference 95% CI 0. 88, 1.20; p <.001). Eight percent, 29%, and 69% of physicians, respectively, said that they "certainly would" resuscitate in these three vignettes (p <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians may believe that DNR orders do not apply to iatrogenic cardiac arrests and that patients do not consider the possibility of an iatrogenic arrest when they negotiate a DNR order. Physicians may also believe that there is a greater obligation to treat when an illness is iatrogenic, and particularly when an illness results from the physician's error. This response to iatrogenic cardiac arrests, and its possible generalization to other iatrogenic complications, deserves further consideration and discussion. (+info)