Literature DB >> 8103146

Biases in how physicians choose to withdraw life support.

N A Christakis1, D A Asch.   

Abstract

We have investigated biases in physicians' decisions regarding the form of life support to withdraw from critically ill patients in whom the decision to withdraw has already been made. Using a specially designed instrument that solicited both self-reported preferences and also responses to experimentally varied clinical vignettes, we surveyed 862 American internists, of whom 481 (56%) responded. Physicians do have preferences about the form of life support withdrawn. From most likely to least likely the order is: blood products, haemodialysis, intravenous vasopressors, total parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, mechanical ventilation, tube feedings, and intravenous fluids. Four biases in decision making were also identified. Physicians prefer to withdraw forms of therapy supporting organs that failed for natural rather than iatrogenic reasons, to withdraw recently instituted rather than longstanding interventions, to withdraw forms of therapy resulting in immediate death rather than delayed death, and to withdraw forms of therapy resulting in delayed death when confronted with diagnostic uncertainty. Because these biases may have clinical, social, and ethical consequences counter to patient goals, and because they may affect the underlying decision whether to withdraw life support at all, they may represent impediments to rational and compassionate decision making in critical care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; University of Pennsylvania

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8103146     DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91759-f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  28 in total

Review 1.  Physician-assisted suicide in the United States: the underlying factors in technology, health care and palliative medicine--Part one.

Authors:  R F Rizzo
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2000

2.  Factors affecting physicians' decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatments in terminal care.

Authors:  H Hinkka; E Kosunen; R Metsänoja; U-K Lammi; P Kellokumpu-Lehtinen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.903

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.  Life-support limitation in the pre-hospital setting.

Authors:  Graeme Rocker
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-08-02       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 5.  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

6.  "Iatrogenicity cascade": doing harm by treating harm?

Authors:  Claudia Christina Wagner; Jerome Biollaz; Markus Zeitlinger; Thierry Buclin
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2009

7.  Mandatory ethics consultation policy.

Authors:  Megan E Romano; Staffan B Wahlander; Barbara H Lang; Guohua Li; Kenneth M Prager
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 7.616

8.  Would physicians override a do-not-resuscitate order when a cardiac arrest is iatrogenic?

Authors:  D J Casarett; C B Stocking; M Siegler
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 9.  Affective forecasting: an unrecognized challenge in making serious health decisions.

Authors:  Jodi Halpern; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-30       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Expectations and outcomes of prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Christopher E Cox; Tereza Martinu; Shailaja J Sathy; Alison S Clay; Jessica Chia; Alice L Gray; Maren K Olsen; Joseph A Govert; Shannon S Carson; James A Tulsky
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.598

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.