BACKGROUND: Modern medicine provides unprecedented opportunities in diagnostics and treatment. However, in some situations at the end of a patient's life, many physicians refrain from using all possible measures to prolong life. We studied the incidence of different types of treatment withheld or withdrawn in 6 European countries and analyzed the main background characteristics. METHODS: Between June 2001 and February 2002, samples were obtained from deaths reported to registries in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. The reporting physician was then sent a questionnaire about the medical decision-making process that preceded the patient's death. RESULTS: The incidence of nontreatment decisions, whether or not combined with other end-of-life decisions, varied widely from 6% of all deaths studied in Italy to 41% in Switzerland. Most frequently forgone in every country were hydration or nutrition and medication, together representing between 62% (Belgium) and 71% (Italy) of all treatments withheld or withdrawn. Forgoing treatment estimated to prolong life for more than 1 month was more common in the Netherlands (10%), Belgium (9%), and Switzerland (8%) than in Denmark (5%), Italy (3%), and Sweden (2%). Relevant determinants of treatment being withheld rather than withdrawn were older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.79), death outside the hospital (death in hospital: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93), and greater life-shortening effect (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: In all of the participating countries, life-prolonging treatment is withheld or withdrawn at the end of life. Frequencies vary greatly among countries. Low-technology interventions, such as medication or hydration or nutrition, are most frequently forgone. In older patients and outside the hospital, physicians prefer not to initiate life-prolonging treatment at all rather than stop it later.
BACKGROUND: Modern medicine provides unprecedented opportunities in diagnostics and treatment. However, in some situations at the end of a patient's life, many physicians refrain from using all possible measures to prolong life. We studied the incidence of different types of treatment withheld or withdrawn in 6 European countries and analyzed the main background characteristics. METHODS: Between June 2001 and February 2002, samples were obtained from deaths reported to registries in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. The reporting physician was then sent a questionnaire about the medical decision-making process that preceded the patient's death. RESULTS: The incidence of nontreatment decisions, whether or not combined with other end-of-life decisions, varied widely from 6% of all deaths studied in Italy to 41% in Switzerland. Most frequently forgone in every country were hydration or nutrition and medication, together representing between 62% (Belgium) and 71% (Italy) of all treatments withheld or withdrawn. Forgoing treatment estimated to prolong life for more than 1 month was more common in the Netherlands (10%), Belgium (9%), and Switzerland (8%) than in Denmark (5%), Italy (3%), and Sweden (2%). Relevant determinants of treatment being withheld rather than withdrawn were older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.79), death outside the hospital (death in hospital: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93), and greater life-shortening effect (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.27-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: In all of the participating countries, life-prolonging treatment is withheld or withdrawn at the end of life. Frequencies vary greatly among countries. Low-technology interventions, such as medication or hydration or nutrition, are most frequently forgone. In older patients and outside the hospital, physicians prefer not to initiate life-prolonging treatment at all rather than stop it later.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach
Authors: Anouk Overbeek; Lieve Van den Block; Ida J Korfage; Yolanda W H Penders; Agnes van der Heide; Judith A C Rietjens Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Joris Gielen; Sushma Bhatnagar; Seema Mishra; Arvind K Chaturvedi; Harmala Gupta; Ambika Rajvanshi; Stef Van den Branden; Bert Broeckaert Journal: Med Health Care Philos Date: 2011-02
Authors: John D Parr; Baohui Zhang; Matthew E Nilsson; Alexi Wright; Tracy Balboni; Edmund Duthie; Elizabeth Paulk; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Georg Bosshard; Susanne Fischer; Agnes van der Heide; Guido Miccinesi; Karin Faisst Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Kenneth Chambaere; Judith A C Rietjens; Tinne Smets; Johan Bilsen; Reginald Deschepper; H Roeline W Pasman; Luc Deliens Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rurik Löfmark; Tore Nilstun; Colleen Cartwright; Susanne Fischer; Agnes van der Heide; Freddy Mortier; Michael Norup; Lorenzo Simonato; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen Journal: BMC Med Date: 2008-02-12 Impact factor: 8.775