Colleen Maria Cartwright1, Ben P White2, Lindy Willmott2, Gail Williams3, Malcolm Holbrook Parker4. 1. ASLaRC Aged Services Unit, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia Cartwright Consulting Australia, Miami, QLD, Australia colleen.cartwright@scu.edu.au. 2. Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To effectively care for people who are terminally ill, including those without decision-making capacity, palliative care physicians must know and understand the legal standing of Advance Care Planning in their jurisdiction of practice. This includes the use of advance directives/living wills and substitute decision-makers who can legally consent to or refuse treatment if there is no valid advance directive. AIM: This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical specialists most often involved in end-of-life care in relation to the law on withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults without decision-making capacity. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: A pre-piloted survey was posted to specialists in palliative, emergency, geriatric, renal and respiratory medicine; intensive care; and medical oncology in three Australian States. Surveys were analysed using SPSS 20 and SAS 9.3. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 32% (867/2702) - 52% from palliative care specialists. Palliative care specialists and geriatricians had significantly more positive attitudes towards the law (χ42(2) = 94.352; p < 0.001) and higher levels of knowledge about the withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment law (χ7(2) = 30.033; p < 0.001) than did the other specialists, while still having critical gaps in their knowledge. CONCLUSION: A high level of knowledge of the law is essential to ensure that patients' wishes and decisions, expressed through Advance Care Planning, are respected to the maximum extent possible within the law, thereby according with the principles and philosophy of palliative care. It is also essential to protect health professionals from legal action resulting from unauthorised provision or cessation of treatment.
BACKGROUND: To effectively care for people who are terminally ill, including those without decision-making capacity, palliative care physicians must know and understand the legal standing of Advance Care Planning in their jurisdiction of practice. This includes the use of advance directives/living wills and substitute decision-makers who can legally consent to or refuse treatment if there is no valid advance directive. AIM: This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical specialists most often involved in end-of-life care in relation to the law on withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults without decision-making capacity. DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: A pre-piloted survey was posted to specialists in palliative, emergency, geriatric, renal and respiratory medicine; intensive care; and medical oncology in three Australian States. Surveys were analysed using SPSS 20 and SAS 9.3. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 32% (867/2702) - 52% from palliative care specialists. Palliative care specialists and geriatricians had significantly more positive attitudes towards the law (χ42(2) = 94.352; p < 0.001) and higher levels of knowledge about the withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment law (χ7(2) = 30.033; p < 0.001) than did the other specialists, while still having critical gaps in their knowledge. CONCLUSION: A high level of knowledge of the law is essential to ensure that patients' wishes and decisions, expressed through Advance Care Planning, are respected to the maximum extent possible within the law, thereby according with the principles and philosophy of palliative care. It is also essential to protect health professionals from legal action resulting from unauthorised provision or cessation of treatment.
Authors: Amy Waller; Jamie Bryant; Alison Bowman; Ben P White; Lindy Willmott; Robert Pickles; Carolyn Hullick; Emma Price; Anne Knight; Mary-Ann Ryall; Mathew Clapham; Rob Sanson-Fisher Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 2.834
Authors: Reetta P Piili; Riina Metsänoja; Heikki Hinkka; Pirkko-Liisa I Kellokumpu-Lehtinen; Juho T Lehto Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2018-05-30 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Reetta P Piili; Juho T Lehto; Tiina Luukkaala; Heikki Hinkka; Pirkko-Liisa I Kellokumpu-Lehtinen Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Sun Woo Hong; Shinmi Kim; Yu Jin Yun; Hyun Sook Jung; JaeLan Shim; JinShil Kim Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Meira Erel; Esther-Lee Marcus; Samuel N Heyman; Freda DeKeyser Ganz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Veronika Krautheim; Andrea Schmitz; Gesine Benze; Thomas Standl; Christine Schiessl; Wolfgang Waldeyer; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Eberhard F Kochs; Gerhard Schneider; Klaus J Wagner; Christian M Schulz Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: João Gabriel Rosa Ramos; Roberto D'Oliveira Vieira; Fernanda Correia Tourinho; Andre Ismael; Diaulas Costa Ribeiro; Humberto Jacques de Medeiro; Daniel Neves Forte Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 9.097