Literature DB >> 7842181

Decisions to limit or continue life-sustaining treatment by critical care physicians in the United States: conflicts between physicians' practices and patients' wishes.

D A Asch1, J Hansen-Flaschen, P N Lanken.   

Abstract

We surveyed a national sample of 879 physicians practicing in adult intensive care units in the United States, in order to determine their practices with regard to limiting life-sustaining medical treatment, and particularly their decisions to continue or forgo life support without the consent or against the wishes of patients or surrogates. Virtually all of the respondents (96%) have withheld and withdrawn life-sustaining medical treatment on the expectation of a patient's death, and most do so frequently in the course of a year. Many physicians continue life-sustaining treatment despite patient or surrogate wishes that it be discontinued (34%), and many unilaterally withhold (83%) or withdraw (82%) life-sustaining treatment that they judge to be futile. Some of these decisions are made without the knowledge or consent of patients or their surrogates, and some are made over their objections. We conclude that physicians do not reflexively accept requests by patients or surrogates to limit or continue life-sustaining treatment, but place these requests alongside a collection of other factors, including assessments of prognosis and perceptions of other ethical, legal, and policy guidelines. While debate continues about the ethical and legal foundations of medical futility, our results suggest that most critical care physicians are incorporating some concept of medical futility into decision making at the bedside.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7842181     DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.151.2.7842181

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med        ISSN: 1073-449X            Impact factor:   21.405


  38 in total

Review 1.  Conditions and consequences of medical futility--from a literature review to a clinical model.

Authors:  R Löfmark; T Nilstun
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 2.  Withdrawing life support and resolution of conflict with families.

Authors:  Jenny Way; Anthony L Back; J Randall Curtis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-12-07

3.  Excellence in end-of-life care: a goal for intensivists.

Authors:  Robert D Troung; Jeffrey P Burns
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  On the Edge of Life, I: Assessment of, Reaction to, and Management of the Terminally Ill Recorded in an Intensive Care Unit Journal.

Authors:  Mikkael A. Sekeres; Theodore A. Stern
Journal:  Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2002-10

5.  Impact of an intensive communication strategy on end-of-life practices in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  J P Quenot; J P Rigaud; S Prin; S Barbar; A Pavon; M Hamet; N Jacquiot; B Blettery; C Hervé; P E Charles; G Moutel
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Allow-natural-death (AND) orders: legal, ethical, and practical considerations.

Authors:  Maura C Schlairet; Richard W Cohen
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2013-06

Review 7.  The pressure to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapy from critically ill patients in the United States.

Authors:  John M Luce; Douglas B White
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-03-22       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 8.  Withholding and withdrawal of life support from critically ill patients.

Authors:  J M Luce
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1997-12

Review 9.  Worldwide similarities and differences in the foregoing of life-sustaining treatments.

Authors:  C L Sprung; L A Eidelman
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  Medical futility and the social context.

Authors:  R Halliday
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.