Redefining the domains of decision making by physician and patient

Between quality of life and hope. Attitudes and beliefs of Muslim women toward withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments

The technological advances in medicine, including prolongation of life, have constituted several dilemmas at the end of life. In the context of the Belgian debates on end-of-life care, the views of Muslim women remain understudied. The aim of this article is fourfold. First, we seek to describe the beliefs and attitudes of middle-aged and elderly Moroccan Muslim women toward withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. Second, we aim to identify whether differences are observable among middle-aged and elderly women's attitudes toward withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. Third, we aim to explore the role of religion in their attitudes. Fourth, we seek to document how our results are related to normative Islamic literature. Qualitative empirical research was conducted with a sample of middle-aged and elderly Moroccan Muslim women (n = 30) living in Antwerp (Belgium) and with experts in the field (n = 15). We found an unconditional belief in God's sovereign power over the domain of life and death (cf. determined lifespan by God) and in God's almightiness (cf. belief in a miracle). However, we also found a tolerant attitude, mainly among our middle-aged participants, toward withholding and withdrawing (treatment) based on theological, eschatological, financial and quality of life arguments. Our study reveals that religious beliefs and worldviews have a great impact on the ethical attitudes toward end-of-life issues. We found divergent positions toward withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, reflecting the lines of reasoning found in normative Islamic literature. In our interviews, theological and eschatological notions emerged as well as financial and quality of life arguments.

The strange case of Mr. H. Starting dialysis at 90 years of age: clinical choices impact on ethical decisions

Background

Starting dialysis at an advanced age is a clinical challenge and an ethical dilemma. The advantages of starting dialysis at “extreme” ages are questionable as high dialysis-related morbidity induces a reflection on the cost- benefit ratio of this demanding and expensive treatment in a person that has a short life expectancy. Where clinical advantages are doubtful, ethical analysis can help us reach decisions and find adapted solutions.

Case presentation

Mr. H is a ninety-year-old patient with end-stage kidney disease that is no longer manageable with conservative care, in spite of optimal nutritional management, good blood pressure control and strict clinical and metabolic evaluations; dialysis is the next step, but its morbidity is challenging. The case is analysed according to principlism (beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and respect for autonomy).

In the setting of care, dialysis is available without restriction; therefore the principle of justice only partially applied, in the absence of restraints on health-care expenditure. The final decision on whether or not to start dialysis rested with Mr. H (respect for autonomy). However, his choice depended on the balance between beneficence and non-maleficence. The advantages of dialysis in restoring metabolic equilibrium were clear, and the expected negative effects of dialysis were therefore decisive. Mr. H has a contraindication to peritoneal dialysis (severe arthritis impairing self-performance) and felt performing it with nursing help would be intrusive. Post dialysis fatigue, poor tolerance, hypotension and intrusiveness in daily life of haemodialysis patients are closely linked to the classic thrice-weekly, four-hour schedule. A personalized incremental dialysis approach, starting with one session per week, adapting the timing to the patient’s daily life, can limit side effects and “dialysis shock”.

Conclusions

An individualized approach to complex decisions such as dialysis start can alter the delicate benefit/side-effect balance, ultimately affecting the patient’s choice, and points to a narrative, tailor-made approach as an alternative to therapeutic nihilism, in very old and fragile patients.

Discontinuation of a randomised controlled trial in general practice due to unsuccessful patient recruitment

Background

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice, recruiting incident patients with (sub)acute sciatica, was discontinued because of insufficient recruitment.

Aim

To describe factors that influenced the recruitment process and ultimately led to discontinuation of this trial, and to enable others to learn from this experience.

Design & setting

A pragmatic RCT was designed to compare two pain medication prescription strategies for treatment of (sub)acute sciatica in general practice. After 1 year of patient recruitment, the trial was prematurely terminated.

Method

To analyse the underperforming recruitment, patient information systems of 20 general practices were screened twice a month to search for eligible patients and identify reasons for non-eligibility. Secondly, after study termination, an open question was distributed to the participating GPs for their views on the recruitment process.

Results

A total of 116 GPs from 37 general practices collaborated in the trial. Only eight of 234 patients were included after 12 months. The 22 GPs who offered their opinion on the main reasons for unsuccessful recruitment considered that these were the low incidence rate and strict eligibility criteria, a strong patient and/or GP preference, and time constraints.

Conclusion

For this RCT, multiple factors were related to recruitment problems but it remains unknown which determinants prevailed. As the research question is unanswered but remains relevant, it is recommended that GPs' daily practice is taken into account when designing an RCT, a pilot study should be performed for feasibility of recruitment, and GP assistants should be involved at an early stage.

Shared decision making in palliative cancer care: a literature review

Background

Patients require information to make informed decisions and consent to medical treatment. Shared decision making (SDM) is a methodology that promotes a patient-centred approach to informed consent and demonstrates respect for autonomy

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to critically review the legal and ethical issues relevant to Canadian and UK informed consent and SDM practices and how these processes relate to current palliative care practices, with a particular emphasis on radiation therapy.

Methodology

A review of the English literature from 2003 to 2013 was performed using the databases PubMed (NML), OVID Medline and Google Scholar.

Results and Conclusions

The literature identifies that palliative cancer patients desire the opportunity to be involved with decision-making discussions, which has shown to increase knowledge and result in better health-related outcomes. However, ethical and legal issues regarding the practicality of including this patient population in SDM discussions raises questions about validity of consent. For SDM to be considered a valid methodology to obtain informed consent, open and honest communication between the patient and multidisciplinary team is essential. Treatment options for palliative cancer patients are often complex and SDM allows healthcare professionals and patients to exchange information and negotiate feasible treatment options based on medical expertise and patient preferences.

Legal frameworks have defined current standards of practice for various healthcare professions, including radiation therapy. Radiation therapists, as members of the multidisciplinary team, are currently key contributors in providing information to patients regarding the radiotherapy process. Individuals working within advanced practice roles have the ability to develop skills once considered to be within medical domains and have begun to incorporate the delegated act of obtaining informed consent into practice which has shown to increase professional autonomy, accountability and improves patient-centred care.

Governance mechanisms in the physician-patient relationship: a literature review and conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

The physician-patient relationship is a critical component of the integrated approach to excellence in health-care delivery. Although commonly modelled within the boundaries of the agency theory and regarded as synonymous to an agent-principal interaction, there exists only a sparse understanding about the most effective ways of governing it.

OBJECTIVE

This article undertakes a selective review of the growing body of research on the governance of the physician-patient relationship to discuss the current state of the knowledge in the field and suggest promising avenues for further exploration.

FINDINGS

On the basis of an extensive analysis of the relevant literature, we identify two emerging streams of inquiry on the trust-based (i.e. trust and ethical oversight) and distrust-based (i.e. patient information-empowerment and decision-making authority) governance mechanisms of the physician-patient relationship and discuss the key findings within each stream.

DISCUSSION

To conciliate the on-going scholarly debate concerning the efficacy of trust- and distrust-based mechanisms, we draw the foundations of a conceptual framework which might serve as a guide for more integrative research endeavours on the governance of the physician-patient relationship.