PURPOSE: This study aims to provide empirical data on physicians' intentions in withholding and withdrawing treatment, and to discuss possible implications for the ethical debate. BASIC PROCEDURES: The data presented come from EURELD, a large research project designed to investigate medical end-of-life decisions in six European countries. A continuous random sample of death certificates formed the basis for contacting doctors who had attended the deceased; the doctors were asked to complete, strictly anonymously, mail questionnaires on the decisions taken at the end of their patients' lives. MAIN FINDINGS: In the six countries studied, physicians reported they had the explicit intention of hastening the end of life in 45% of all treatments that were withheld/ withdrawn. The highest numbers of cases with an underlying intention of hastening the end of life were found in Switzerland and Sweden (52% and 51%, respectively); the lowest figures came from Denmark and Belgium (36% and 38%). Middle-ranking countries were Italy (42%) and the Netherlands (45%). Overall, dialysis and respiration were comparatively more often forgone with the explicit intent to hasten the end of life (57% and 54%, respectively), whereas a particularly low percentage of cases with such an explicit intention was found for oncotherapy (34%). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: In almost every second case, a medical decision to withhold or withdraw treatment is taken with the explicit intention of hastening the end of the patient's life. No clear association can be found between the intent to hasten the end of life and features of the treatment forgone that can be determined objectively, such as the likelihood and extent of a life-shortening effect, the immediacy of death, or the expected burden of any potential life-sustaining measure. The findings of the study challenge the usefulness of doctors' intentions with regard to hastening the end of life as criteria for moral judgements on decisions to withhold or withdraw medical treatment.
PURPOSE: This study aims to provide empirical data on physicians' intentions in withholding and withdrawing treatment, and to discuss possible implications for the ethical debate. BASIC PROCEDURES: The data presented come from EURELD, a large research project designed to investigate medical end-of-life decisions in six European countries. A continuous random sample of death certificates formed the basis for contacting doctors who had attended the deceased; the doctors were asked to complete, strictly anonymously, mail questionnaires on the decisions taken at the end of their patients' lives. MAIN FINDINGS: In the six countries studied, physicians reported they had the explicit intention of hastening the end of life in 45% of all treatments that were withheld/ withdrawn. The highest numbers of cases with an underlying intention of hastening the end of life were found in Switzerland and Sweden (52% and 51%, respectively); the lowest figures came from Denmark and Belgium (36% and 38%). Middle-ranking countries were Italy (42%) and the Netherlands (45%). Overall, dialysis and respiration were comparatively more often forgone with the explicit intent to hasten the end of life (57% and 54%, respectively), whereas a particularly low percentage of cases with such an explicit intention was found for oncotherapy (34%). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: In almost every second case, a medical decision to withhold or withdraw treatment is taken with the explicit intention of hastening the end of the patient's life. No clear association can be found between the intent to hasten the end of life and features of the treatment forgone that can be determined objectively, such as the likelihood and extent of a life-shortening effect, the immediacy of death, or the expected burden of any potential life-sustaining measure. The findings of the study challenge the usefulness of doctors' intentions with regard to hastening the end of life as criteria for moral judgements on decisions to withhold or withdraw medical treatment.
Authors: G Bosshard; K Faisst; S Fischer; R Minder; U Zellweger; A Tschopp; F Gutzwiller; W Bär Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2005-12-16 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: P J van der Maas; G van der Wal; I Haverkate; C L de Graaff; J G Kester; B D Onwuteaka-Philipsen; A van der Heide; J M Bosma; D L Willems Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-11-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Georg Bosshard; Tore Nilstun; Johan Bilsen; Michael Norup; Guido Miccinesi; Johannes J M van Delden; Karin Faisst; Agnes van der Heide Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-02-28
Authors: Agnes van der Heide; Luc Deliens; Karin Faisst; Tore Nilstun; Michael Norup; Eugenio Paci; Gerrit van der Wal; Paul J van der Maas Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-08-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ewan C Goligher; E Wesley Ely; Daniel P Sulmasy; Jan Bakker; John Raphael; Angelo E Volandes; Bhavesh M Patel; Kate Payne; Annmarie Hosie; Larry Churchill; Douglas B White; James Downar Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.598
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