OBJECTIVE: To examine public opinion regarding certain elements of consent: disclosure, advance directives, substitute decisions, emergency treatment, and advocacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional random-digit-dialing telephonic survey. SETTING: General public. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand randomly-selected adults living in Ontario. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: Of 5,708 telephone numbers drawn, 641 were non-valid or non-residential, 1,283 were not in service, 1,068 had no answer, a busy line, or an unavailable respondent, 147 subjects had a language barrier, 1,497 subjects refused, 72 interviews were incomplete, and 1,000 interviews were completed. With regard to disclosure, 33% of respondents said that a doctor should withhold information from a patient if asked to do so by the patient's family. With regard to advance directives, 36% of respondents had had advance discussions with their families, and 12% had completed a living will. With regard to substitute decisions, 77% of respondents said that they would went their wishes followed if they were unable to make medical decisions for themselves; 58% wanted their spouse or partner to make such decisions for them. With regard to emergency treatment, 48% of respondents stated that a doctor should give a life-saving blood transfusion to an unconscious adult carrying a card stating that blood transfusion was against his or her religious beliefs. With regard to advocacy, 78% of respondents supported mandatory advocacy services for serious health decisions such as whether to have heart surgery; 33% supported advocacy services for less serious decisions such as whether to have a dental filling. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the need to reconsider legislative provisions regarding and/or target public education programs toward specific consent-related issues including disclosure, advance directives, substitute decisions, emergency treatment, and advocacy.
OBJECTIVE: To examine public opinion regarding certain elements of consent: disclosure, advance directives, substitute decisions, emergency treatment, and advocacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional random-digit-dialing telephonic survey. SETTING: General public. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand randomly-selected adults living in Ontario. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: Of 5,708 telephone numbers drawn, 641 were non-valid or non-residential, 1,283 were not in service, 1,068 had no answer, a busy line, or an unavailable respondent, 147 subjects had a language barrier, 1,497 subjects refused, 72 interviews were incomplete, and 1,000 interviews were completed. With regard to disclosure, 33% of respondents said that a doctor should withhold information from a patient if asked to do so by the patient's family. With regard to advance directives, 36% of respondents had had advance discussions with their families, and 12% had completed a living will. With regard to substitute decisions, 77% of respondents said that they would went their wishes followed if they were unable to make medical decisions for themselves; 58% wanted their spouse or partner to make such decisions for them. With regard to emergency treatment, 48% of respondents stated that a doctor should give a life-saving blood transfusion to an unconscious adult carrying a card stating that blood transfusion was against his or her religious beliefs. With regard to advocacy, 78% of respondents supported mandatory advocacy services for serious health decisions such as whether to have heart surgery; 33% supported advocacy services for less serious decisions such as whether to have a dental filling. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the need to reconsider legislative provisions regarding and/or target public education programs toward specific consent-related issues including disclosure, advance directives, substitute decisions, emergency treatment, and advocacy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Death and Euthanasia; Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship
Authors: Jean Carlet; Lambertus G Thijs; Massimo Antonelli; Joan Cassell; Peter Cox; Nicholas Hill; Charles Hinds; Jorge Manuel Pimentel; Konrad Reinhart; Boyd Taylor Thompson Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-04-20 Impact factor: 17.440