Literature DB >> 15379196

Mental competence and surrogate decision-making towards the end of life.

M Strätling1, V E Scharf, P Schmucker.   

Abstract

German legislation demands that decisions about the treatment of mentally incompetent patients require an 'informed consent'. If this was not given by the patient him-/herself before he/she became incompetent, it has to be sought by the physician from a guardian, who has to be formally legitimized before. Additionally this surrogate has to seek the permission of a Court of Guardianship (Vormundschaftsgericht), if he/she intends to consent to interventions, which pose significant risks to the health or the life of the person under his/her care. This includes 'end-of-life decisions'. Deviations from this procedure are only allowed in acute emergencies or cases of 'medical futility'. On the basis of epidemiological and demographical data it can be shown that the vast majority of surrogate decisions on incompetent patients in Germany is not covered by legally valid consent. Moreover, the data suggests that if consent were to be requested according to the legal regulations, both the legal and medical system could realistically never cope with the practical consequences of this. Additionally, empiric research has revealed serious deficits concerning medical 'end of life-decisions' and practical performance in palliative care. As a consequence a multidisciplinary discussion has developed in Germany about the reform of present legislation with respect to key-issues like the assessment of mental competence, the options for exercising patient self-determination via advance directives and durable powers of attorney, the improvement of palliative care facilities, the clarification of formal procedures for surrogate decision-making in health care and towards the end of life and the possibilities and their limitations of controlling these decision-making processes 'externally' (e.g., by Guardianship Courts or committees). The authors discuss those proposals, which clearly dominate the present debate: They all aim to comply with the scientific basis of German law, jurisdiction and the European traditions of philosophy of health care and bioethics.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Legal Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15379196     DOI: 10.1023/b:mhep.0000034313.39798.98

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Health Care Philos        ISSN: 1386-7423


  4 in total

1.  [Medical rights review tables. Definitions, criteria, statutes, checklists for everyday clinical use].

Authors:  M Strätling; V E Scharf
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  [The decision incompetent patient in the space between deception and medicine. A reply to the remarks of K.W. Schmidt and M. Sold].

Authors:  M Strätling; V E Scharf; H Wulf; B Eisenbart
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 1.041

3.  [Ethical decisions at the end of life: principles, uncertainties, perspectives].

Authors:  M Weber; K Kutzer
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2002-12-13       Impact factor: 0.628

4.  Withdrawing intensive life-sustaining treatment -- recommendations for compassionate clinical management.

Authors:  H Brody; M L Campbell; K Faber-Langendoen; K S Ogle
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-02-27       Impact factor: 91.245

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.