Search

It is common for health care providers to deal with the complex and difficult issue of withdrawing advanced life support. The patient is always the key source of authority in these decisions. The most important ingredient in end-of-life decision making is effective communication. It is important to try to ascertain what the patient thought about quality-of-life values before surrogate decisions can be made on the patient's behalf. The concepts of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice are the foundation of ethical decision making. Numerous legal precedents have laid the groundwork for end-of-life decision making. Most state courts have supported withholding and withdrawing life support from patients who will not regain a reasonable quality of life. The recent Patient Self-Determination Act encourages patients to fill out advance directives that state their desires. When continued intensive care is futile, advanced life support should be withdrawn. However, a narrow definition of futility in this situation is the key, since the concept of futility could lead to inappropriate decisions. It is best to consider a situation futile when the patient is terminally ill, the condition is irreversible, and death is imminent. During the withdrawal of advanced life support, terminal or rapid weaning is preferable to extubation. Combinations of opiates, benzodiazepines, and other agents help provide comfort to patients who are suffering.

Background: Patient-centered decision making, which in the United States is typically considered to be appropriate, may not be universally endorsed, thereby harboring the potential to complicate the care of patients from other cultural backgrounds in potentially unrecognized ways. This study compares the attitudes toward ethical decision making and autonomy issues among academic and community physicians and patients of medical center outpatient clinics in Japan and the United States., Methods: A questionnaire requesting judgments about seven clinical vignettes was distributed (in English or Japanese) to sample groups of Japanese physicians (n = 400) and patients (n = 65) as well as US physicians (n = 120) and patients (n = 60) that were selected randomly from academic institutions and community settings in Japan (Tokyo and the surrounding area) and the United States (the Stanford/Palo Alto, CA, area). Responses were obtained from 273 Japanese physicians (68%), 58 Japanese patients (89%), 98 US physicians (82%), and 55 US patients (92%). Physician and patient sample groups were compared on individual items, and composite scores were derived from subsets of items relevant to patient autonomy, family authority, and physician authority., Results: A majority of both US physicians and patients, but only a minority of Japanese physicians and patients, agreed that a patient should be informed of an incurable cancer diagnosis before their family is informed and that a terminally ill patient wishing to die immediately should not be ventilated, even if both the doctor and the patient's family want the patient ventilated (Japanese physicians and patients vs US physicians and patients, p < 0.001). A majority of respondents in both Japanese sample groups, but only a minority in both US sample groups, agreed that a patient's family should be informed of an incurable cancer diagnosis before the patient is informed and that the family of an HIV-positive patient should be informed of this disease status despite the patient's opposition to such disclosure (Japanese physicians and patients vs US physicians and patients, p < 0.001). Physicians in both Japan and the United States were less likely than patients in their respective countries to agree with physician assistance in the suicide of a terminally ill patient (Japanese physicians and patients vs US physicians and patients, p < 0.05). Across various clinical scenarios, all four respondent groups accorded greatest authority to the patient, less to the family, and still less to the physician when the views of these persons conflicted. Japanese physicians and patients, however, relied more on family and physician authority and placed less emphasis on patient autonomy than the US physicians and patients sampled. Younger respondents placed less emphasis on family and physician authority., Conclusions: Family and physician opinions are accorded a larger role in clinical decision making by the Japanese physicians and patients sampled than by those in the United States, although both cultures place a greater emphasis on patient preferences than on the preferences of the family or physician. Our results are consistent with the view that cultural context shapes the relationship of the patient, the physician, and the patient's family in medical decision making. The results emphasize the need for clinicians to be aware of these issues that may affect patient and family responses in different clinical situations, potentially affecting patient satisfaction and compliance with therapy.

As medicine has increasingly gained the power to prolong life in the face of devastating illness, patients have increasingly become concerned about maintaining some control over how and when death arrives. Competent patients have the legal right to refuse treatment, but critically ill patients are frequently unable to participate in decision making. Advance directives were designed to help patients establish the level of care they would receive if they were to be rendered incompetent; yet, as the case discussed in this essay shows, even a valid advance directive does not guarantee that unwanted medical interventions will not be forced on us. The problem of physicians ignoring their patients' wishes goes beyond issues of communication and reflects an ongoing ambivalence about power and control in the physician-patient relationship. Unfortunately, many physicians find it easier to define success in terms of life and death than to try to determine what sort of existence is meaningful to an individual patient.