Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Arch Intern Med ; 160(3): 357-63, 2000 Feb 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10668838

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients are common in some areas of medical practice. Information about the frequency and background of these decisions is generally limited to specific clinical settings. This article describes the practice of withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment in the Netherlands. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to the attending physicians of a stratified sample of 6060 of all 43002 cases of death in the Netherlands from August 1 through November 30, 1995. The questions concerned the treatments foregone, the patient characteristics, and the decision-making process. The response rate was 77%. RESULTS: A nontreatment decision was made in 30% (95% confidence interval, 28%-31%) of all deaths in the Netherlands in 1995; this is an increase compared with 28% (95% confidence interval, 26%-29%) in 1990; in 20% of all deaths, this decision was the most important end-of-life decision. Artificial nutrition or hydration and antibiotics were the treatments most frequently foregone, each accounting for 25% of cases in which a nontreatment decision was made. Nursing-home physicians withheld or withdrew treatment more often than clinical specialists or general practitioners in 52%, 35%, and 17% of all deaths they were involved with, respectively. Of the patients in whom a nontreatment decision was the most important end-of-life decision, 26% were competent; of those, 93% were involved in the decision making. In 17% of patients, the nontreatment decision was made without being discussed with the patient or the patient's relatives and without knowledge of the patient's wishes. Life was shortened by an estimated 24 hours or less in 42% and 1 month or more in 8% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions to forego life-prolonging treatment are frequently made end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands and may be increasing. Most of these decisions do not involve high-technology treatments, and the consequences, in terms of shortening of life, are relatively small.


Subject(s)
Decision Making , Life Support Care/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Terminally Ill , Treatment Refusal/statistics & numerical data , Withholding Treatment , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Confidence Intervals , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Survival Rate
2.
Lancet ; 350(9073): 251-5, 1997 Jul 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-9242802

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Advances in neonatal intensive care have lowered the neonatal death rate. There are still some severely ill neonates and infants, however, for whom the application of all possible life-prolonging treatment modalities may be questioned. METHODS: We did two studies in the Netherlands. In the first we sent questionnaires to physicians who had attended 338 consecutive deaths (August-November, 1995) within the first year of life (death-certificate study), and in the second we interviewed 31 neonatologists or paediatric intensive-care specialists and 35 general paediatricians. The response rates were 88% and 99%, respectively. FINDINGS: In the death-certificate study, 57% of all deaths had been preceded by a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment; this decision was accompanied by the administration of potentially life-shortening drugs to alleviate pain or other symptoms in 23%, and by the administration of drugs with the explicit aim of hastening death in 8%. A drug was given explicitly to hasten death to neonates not dependent on life-sustaining treatment in 1% of all death cases. No chance of survival was the main motive in 76% of all end-of-life decisions, and a poor prognosis was the main motive in 18%. The interview study showed that parents had been involved in making 79% of decisions. The physicians consulted colleagues about 88% of decisions. Most paediatricians favoured formal review of medical decisions by colleagues together with ethical or legal experts. INTERPRETATION: Death among neonates and infants is commonly preceded by medical end-of-life decisions. Most Dutch paediatricians seem to find prospects for survival and prognostic factors relevant in such decisions. Public control by a committee of physicians, paediatricians, ethicists, and legal experts is widely endorsed by paediatricians.


Subject(s)
Decision Making , Euthanasia, Active , Euthanasia , Infant, Newborn , Withholding Treatment , Attitude of Health Personnel , Death Certificates , Euthanasia/psychology , Euthanasia/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infant , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal , Medicine , Netherlands , Prognosis , Social Control, Formal , Specialization , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
N Engl J Med ; 335(22): 1699-705, 1996 Nov 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-8929370

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In 1991 a new procedure for reporting physician-assisted deaths was introduced in the Netherlands that led to a tripling in the number of reported cases. In 1995, as part of an evaluation of this procedure, a nationwide study of euthanasia and other medical practices concerning the end of life was begun that was identical to a study conducted in 1990. METHODS: We conducted two studies, the first involving interviews with 405 physicians (general practitioners, nursing home physicians, and clinical specialists) and the second involving questionnaires mailed to the physicians attending 6060 deaths that were identified from death certificates. The response rates were 89 percent and 77 percent, respectively. RESULTS: Among the deaths studied, 2.3 percent of those in the interview study and 2.4 percent of those in the death-certificate study were estimated to have resulted from euthanasia, and 0.4 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively, resulted from physician-assisted suicide. In 0.7 percent of cases, life was ended without the explicit, concurrent request of the patient. Pain and symptoms were alleviated with doses of opioids that may have shortened life in 14.7 to 19.1 percent of cases, and decisions to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging treatment were made in 20.2 percent. Euthanasia seems to have increased in incidence since 1990, and ending of life without the patient's explicit request to have decreased slightly. For each type of medical decision except those in which life-prolonging treatment was withheld or withdrawn, cancer was the most frequently reported diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Since the notification procedure was introduced, end-of-life decision making in the Netherlands has changed only slightly, in an anticipated direction. Close monitoring of such decisions is possible, and we found no signs of an unacceptable increase in the number of decisions or of less careful decision making.


Subject(s)
Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary , Euthanasia, Active , Euthanasia/trends , Intention , Suicide, Assisted/trends , Data Collection , Death Certificates , Decision Making , Euthanasia/statistics & numerical data , Euthanasia, Passive/statistics & numerical data , Euthanasia, Passive/trends , Humans , Incidence , Netherlands , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Patient Participation/trends , Physicians , Random Allocation , Sampling Studies , Social Change , Suicide, Assisted/statistics & numerical data , Wedge Argument , Withholding Treatment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...