Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point-of-care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors and editors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

Choose from the list below to learn more about subscriptions for a:


Subscribers log in here


Ethical issues in palliative care and near the end of life

INTRODUCTION

Ethical issues near the end of life (EOL) often arise because of concerns about how much and what kind of care make sense for someone with a limited life expectancy, particularly if the patient is very old. There is often conflict between physicians or nurses and family members about what constitutes appropriate care. Many of these conflicts can be avoided by clarifying who makes the difficult decisions to limit care and by advance care planning. Understanding the ethical and legal framework in which such decisions are made can also transform what appear to be problematic questions into straightforward answers.

A practical approach to advance care planning (ACP) and legal aspects of ACP are discussed separately. (See "Advance care planning and advance directives" and "Legal aspects in palliative and end of life care".)

WHO MAKES THE DECISIONS?

Physicians have recognized the right of the patient to participate in medical decision making for the last 25 years. The principle of autonomy, or the right to make choices about one's own life, has now become the centerpiece of modern American biomedical ethics [1]. The available data suggest that patients with terminal cancer are more likely to receive end of life care that is consistent with their preferences when they have had the opportunity to discuss their wishes with their physician [2].

Unfortunately, close to 50 percent of individuals over age 85 have dementia, which usually precludes their understanding many of the issues involved in choosing among treatment alternatives [3]. In addition, many cognitively intact elderly are delirious during an acute illness and are incapable of complex discussions about their care when important decisions must be made. In these situations, a surrogate must be identified to speak on behalf of the older patient.

Some have cautioned that excessive deference to patient autonomy has the potential to place unwanted and unreasonable responsibility for technical medical decisions on patients or their surrogate decision makers [4]. Given the array of treatments now available for advanced and chronic illness, it is difficult, and at times nearly impossible, for patients or their surrogates to fully comprehend the burdens and benefits of the available options. It remains the responsibility of the clinician to solicit and understand the patient’s goals and values, and then guide and facilitate medical decisions so that the treatments that are provided are consistent with these goals and values.  

       

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Mar 2014. | This topic last updated: Apr 8, 2014.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2014 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making health care decisions: The legal and ethical implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship. United States Government Printing Office; Washington, DC 1982.
  2. Mack JW, Weeks JC, Wright AA, et al. End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1203.
  3. Evans DA, Funkenstein HH, Albert MS, et al. Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease in a community population of older persons. Higher than previously reported. JAMA 1989; 262:2551.
  4. Billings JA, Krakauer EL. On patient autonomy and physician responsibility in end-of-life care. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:849.
  5. Danis M, Garrett J, Harris R, Patrick DL. Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120:567.
  6. Wittink MN, Morales KH, Meoni LA, et al. Stability of preferences for end-of-life treatment after 3 years of follow-up: the Johns Hopkins Precursors Study. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168:2125.
  7. Fried TR, O'Leary J, Van Ness P, Fraenkel L. Inconsistency over time in the preferences of older persons with advanced illness for life-sustaining treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55:1007.
  8. President's Commission for the study of ethical problems in medicine and biomedical and behavioral research. Deciding to forego life-sustaining treatment. United States Government Printing Office; Washington, DC 1983.
  9. Truog RD, Brett AS, Frader J. The problem with futility. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:1560.
  10. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR. Medical futility: its meaning and ethical implications. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112:949.
  11. Emanuel EJ, Fairclough DL, Emanuel LL. Attitudes and desires related to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among terminally ill patients and their caregivers. JAMA 2000; 284:2460.
  12. Ganzini L, Nelson HD, Schmidt TA, et al. Physicians' experiences with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:557.
  13. Casarett D, Kapo J, Caplan A. Appropriate use of artificial nutrition and hydration--fundamental principles and recommendations. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2607.