U Suchner1, C Reudelsterz2, A Hill3,4, C Stoppe3,4, C Gog5. 1. Klinik für Anästhesiologie und operative Intensivmedizin, Klinikum Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Deutschland. 2. Praxis Ernährung - Beratung - Wissenschaft, Berlin, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Operative Intensivmedizin und Intermediate Care, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland. 4. CARE-Cardiovascular Critical Care & Anesthesia Evaluation and Research, Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland. 5. Klinik für Palliativmedizin, Sana-Klinikum Offenbach, Starkenburgring 66, 63069, Offenbach, Deutschland. Christiane.Gog@sana.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The legal framework for fluid management in the palliative care setting varies between continents and even between countries. OBJECTIVES: What legal implications must be taken into account in Germany in dealing with "terminal" dehydration? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant publications in English and German have been identified. Notably, German recommendations and guidelines were reviewed, whereas national mindsets were contrasted with those of other countries like the United Kingdom and Canada. RESULTS: Our legal considerations are in line with the recommendations of the German Federal Medical Association. Key components are "patient autonomy", "best possible symptom control" and a "steady therapeutic risk-benefit assessment". Dehydration should then continue to be regarded as a "symptom" that must be "controlled" as long as it can be improved by therapeutic means and as long as the patient is not opposed to this approach. However, if dehydration remains therapeutically refractory, it is justified either not to initiate clinically assisted hydration (CAH) or to stop the ongoing therapy. The "shared decision-making model" practiced in Canada is diametrically opposed to this approach, where paternalistic decision-making is possible, provided that patients or relatives appear to be ill-informed and unprepared to decide "correct" according to expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: A "non-refractory" state of dehydration at the end of life must not be left untreated under German law and must not be used as an option to hasten the death process if the development of dehydration does not correspond to the patient's will or if this will cannot be determined.
BACKGROUND: The legal framework for fluid management in the palliative care setting varies between continents and even between countries. OBJECTIVES: What legal implications must be taken into account in Germany in dealing with "terminal" dehydration? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant publications in English and German have been identified. Notably, German recommendations and guidelines were reviewed, whereas national mindsets were contrasted with those of other countries like the United Kingdom and Canada. RESULTS: Our legal considerations are in line with the recommendations of the German Federal Medical Association. Key components are "patient autonomy", "best possible symptom control" and a "steady therapeutic risk-benefit assessment". Dehydration should then continue to be regarded as a "symptom" that must be "controlled" as long as it can be improved by therapeutic means and as long as the patient is not opposed to this approach. However, if dehydration remains therapeutically refractory, it is justified either not to initiate clinically assisted hydration (CAH) or to stop the ongoing therapy. The "shared decision-making model" practiced in Canada is diametrically opposed to this approach, where paternalistic decision-making is possible, provided that patients or relatives appear to be ill-informed and unprepared to decide "correct" according to expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: A "non-refractory" state of dehydration at the end of life must not be left untreated under German law and must not be used as an option to hasten the death process if the development of dehydration does not correspond to the patient's will or if this will cannot be determined.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision making; Delivery of health care; Drug therapy; Patient care; Water-electrolyte imbalance