Physicians' responses to patients' requests for physician-assisted suicide

BACKGROUND: Studies show that patient requests for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are a relatively common clinical occurrence. The purpose of this study was to describe how experienced physicians assess and respond to requests for assisted suicide. METHODS: Focused ethnography in the offices of 11 acquired immunodeficiency syndrome physicians, 8 oncologists, and 1 hospice physician who had received requests for assisted suicide in their practice. Ten had facilitated PAS. RESULTS: Informants had a similar approach to evaluating patients who requested assisted suicide, often asking, "Why do you want to die now?" Reasons for requests fell into 3 broad categories: physical symptoms, psychological issues, and existential suffering. Physicians thought they competently addressed patients' physical symptoms, and this obviated most requests. They treated depression empirically and believed they did not assist depressed patients with assisted suicide. Physicians had difficulty addressing patients' existential suffering, which led to most facilitated requests. Informants rarely talked to colleagues about requests for assisted suicide, suggesting a "professional code of silence." CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of divergent attitudes about PAS, physicians respond similarly to requests for assisted suicide from their patients, creating a common ground for professional dialogue. Our sample addressed physical suffering aggressively, treated depression empirically, but struggled with requests arising from existential suffering. A professional code of silence regarding PAS creates professional isolation. Clinicians do not share knowledge or receive social support from peers about their decisions regarding assisted suicide. Educational strategies drawing on approaches used by experienced clinicians may create an atmosphere that enables physicians with divergent beliefs to discuss this difficult subject.     

Responding to intractable terminal suffering: the role of terminal sedation and voluntary refusal of food and fluids. ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel. American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine

When provided by a skilled, multidisciplinary team, palliative care is highly effective at addressing the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs of dying patients and their families. However, some patients who have witnessed harsh death want reassurance that they can escape if their suffering becomes intolerable. In addition, a small percentage of terminally ill patients receiving comprehensive care reach a point at which their suffering becomes severe and unacceptable despite unrestrained palliative efforts; some of these patients request that death be hastened. This paper presents terminal sedation and voluntary refusal of hydration and nutrition as potential last resorts that can be used to address the needs of such patients. These two practices allow clinicians to address a much wider range of intractable end-of-life suffering than physician-assisted suicide (even if it were legal) and can also provide alternatives for patients, families, and clinicians who are morally opposed to physician-assisted suicide. This paper will define the two practices, distinguish them from more standard palliative care interventions and from physician-assisted suicide, illustrate them with a real clinical scenario, provide potential guidelines and practicalities, and explore their moral and legal status. Although medicine cannot sanitize dying or provide perfect answers for all challenging end-of-life clinical problems, terminal sedation and voluntary refusal of hydration and nutrition substantially increase patients' choices at this inherently challenging time.     

Twenty years beyond medical school: physicians' attitudes toward death and terminally ill patients.

BACKGROUND: In response to consumer demands and recent changes in health care, the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges have expressed concern about how physicians relate to patients, especially those who are seriously ill. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of 20 years of medical practice on the attitudes of physicians toward terminally ill patients and their families. METHODS: Data were gathered from questionnaires mailed in 1976 and again in 1996 to physicians who graduated from medical school between 1972 and 1975. RESULTS: Responses were received from 71% and 63% of the 1664 and 1109 physicians surveyed in 1976 and 1996, respectively. Using a t test for paired variables, statistically significant differences were noted for physicians' responses to all of the 11 Likert-type attitudinal statements on death and terminally ill patients and their families. Physicians in 1996 were more willing to inform terminally ill patients of their prognosis and in general seemed more confident with dying patients than they were in 1976. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 decades of practicing medicine, physicians' attitudes toward terminally ill patients seem to have changed; physicians appear to be more open to communicating with terminally ill patients and their families on issues concerning death and dying.     

Characteristics of patients requesting and receiving physician-assisted death

BACKGROUND: Surveys have shown that physicians in the United States report both receiving and honoring requests for physician assistance with a hastened death. The characteristics of patients requesting and receiving physician aid in dying are important to the development of public policy. OBJECTIVE: To determine patient characteristics associated with acts of physician-assisted suicide. DESIGN: Physicians among specialties involved in care of the seriously ill and responding to a national representative prevalence survey on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia were asked to describe the demographic and illness characteristics of the most recent patient whose request for assisted dying they refused as well as the most recent request honored. RESULTS: Of 1902 respondents (63% of those surveyed), 379 described 415 instances of their most recent request refused and 80 instances of the most recent request honored. Patients requesting assistance were seriously ill, near death, and had a significant burden of pain and physical discomfort. Nearly half were described as depressed at the time of the request. The majority made the request themselves, along with family. In multivariate analysis, physicians were more likely to honor requests from patients making a specific request who were in severe pain (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-5.7) or discomfort (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.6-16.1), had a life expectancy of less than 1 month (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-10.8), and were not believed to be depressed at the time of the request (odds ratio, 0.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.5). CONCLUSION: Persons requesting and receiving assistance in dying are seriously ill with little time to live and a high burden of physical suffering.     

Attitudes and practices of U.S. oncologists regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide

BACKGROUND: The practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: To achieve better understanding of attitudes and practices regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the context of end-of-life care. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 3299 oncologists who are members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. MEASUREMENTS: Responses to survey questions on attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient with prostate cancer who has unremitting pain, requests for and performance of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of U.S. oncologists surveyed, 22.5% supported the use of physician-assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient with unremitting pain and 6.5% supported euthanasia. Oncologists who were reluctant to increase the dose of intravenous morphine for terminally ill patients in excruciating pain (odds ratio [OR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]) and had sufficient time to talk to dying patients about end-of-life care issues (OR, 0.79 [CI, 0.71 to 0.87]) were less likely to support euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. During their career, 3.7% of surveyed oncologists had performed euthanasia and 10.8% had performed physician-assisted suicide. Oncologists who were reluctant to increase the morphine dose for patients in excruciating pain (OR, 0.58 [CI, 0.43 to 0.79]) and those who believed that they had received adequate training in end-of-life care (OR, 0.86 [CI, 0.79 to 0.95]) were less likely to have performed euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Oncologists who reported not being able to obtain all the care that a dying patient needed were more likely to have performed euthanasia (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Requests for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are likely to decrease as training in end-of-life care improves and the ability of physicians to provide this care to their patients is enhanced.     

Attitudes of Italian doctors to euthanasia and assisted suicide for terminally ill patients

Among Italian hospital physicians and general practitioners, 17.9% endorsed euthanasia or assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and 79.4% endorsed withholding or withdrawal of treatment. Need for attention to quality of life and pain control also emerged.     

Perceived quality of life and preferences for life-sustaining treatment in older adults

We investigated whether perceived quality of life is associated with preferences for life-sustaining treatment for older adults. Participants included chronically ill, elderly outpatients (N = 258) and their primary physicians (N = 105). Patients and physicians were independently administered a questionnaire regarding patient quality of life and preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation for the patient. Physicians rated patients' global quality of life, physical comfort, mobility, depression, anxiety, and family relationships significantly worse than did patients. Nearly all perceptions of patients' quality of life were significantly associated with physicians' perceptions, but not patients' treatment preferences. Patient-physician agreement on patient global quality of life was not significantly associated with agreement regarding treatment preferences. We conclude that primary physicians generally consider their older outpatients' quality of life to be worse than do the patients. Furthermore, physicians' estimations of patient quality of life are significantly associated with physicians' attitudes toward life-sustaining treatment for the patients. For the patients, however, perceived quality of life does not appear to be associated with their preferences for life-sustaining treatment.     

Terminal sedation and euthanasia: a comparison of clinical practices

BACKGROUND: An important issue in the debate about terminal sedation is the extent to which it differs from euthanasia. We studied clinical differences and similarities between both practices in the Netherlands. METHODS: Personal interviews were held with a nationwide stratified sample of 410 physicians (response rate, 85%) about the most recent cases in which they used terminal sedation, defined as administering drugs to keep the patient continuously in deep sedation or coma until death without giving artificial nutrition or hydration (n = 211), or performed euthanasia, defined as administering a lethal drug at the request of a patient with the explicit intention to hasten death (n = 123). We compared characteristics of the patients, the decision-making process, and medical care of both practices. RESULTS: Terminal sedation and euthanasia both mostly concerned patients with cancer. Patients receiving terminal sedation were more often anxious (37%) and confused (24%) than patients receiving euthanasia (15% and 2%, respectively). Euthanasia requests were typically related to loss of dignity and a sense of suffering without improving, whereas requesting terminal sedation was more often related to severe pain. Physicians applying terminal sedation estimated that the patient's life had been shortened by more than 1 week in 27% of cases, compared with 73% in euthanasia cases. CONCLUSIONS: Terminal sedation and euthanasia both are often applied to address severe suffering in terminally ill patients. However, terminal sedation is typically used to address severe physical and psychological suffering in dying patients, whereas perceived loss of dignity during the last phase of life is a major problem for patients requesting euthanasia.     

Mind frames towards dying and factors motivating their adoption by terminally ill elders

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to advance the understanding of the physical and psychosocial factors that motivate terminally ill elders not only to consider a hastened death but also not to consider such a death. METHODS: I conducted face-to-face in-depth qualitative interviews with 96 terminally ill elders. An inductive approach was taken to locating themes and patterns regarding factors motivating terminally ill elders to consider or not to consider hastening death. RESULT: Six mind frames towards dying emerged: (a) neither ready nor accepting; (b) not ready but accepting; (c) ready and accepting; (d) ready, accepting, and wishing death would come; (e) considering a hastened death but having no specific plan; and (f) considering a hastened death with a specific plan. From the data emerged approaches towards dying and accompanying emotions characterizing each mind frame, as well as factors motivating their adoption by elders. The results showed that psychosocial factors served more often than physical factors as motivators. DISCUSSION: The results demonstrate the importance of assessing the mind frame adopted by a terminally ill elder and his or her level of satisfaction with it. Terminally ill elders may experience a higher quality dying process when a traditional medical care approach is replaced by a holistic approach that addresses physical, spiritual, emotional, and social needs.     

HIV, the right to die, and control

The issue of the right to die in cases involving patients with HIV/AIDS is examined. Physician-assisted suicide is addressed along with issues pertaining to control and choice in the assisted dying debate. In particular, it is noted that there is an increasing awareness of an overriding desire for self-determination in most patients requesting an assisted death. The author argues that because death concentrates the mind and strips away superfluous concerns, the person dying probably knows which choices are best for him or her, and therefore, should be granted the final say.     

Managing end-of-life care: comparing the experiences of terminally Ill patients in managed care and fee for service

There have been no published empirical studies comparing the experiences of terminally ill patients in managed care organizations (MCOs) and those in fee for service (FFS). This investigation represents the first empirical study to systematically compare substantive outcomes between populations of terminally ill patients enrolled in MCO and FFS healthcare delivery systems. The investigators interviewed 988 patients whose physicians judged them to be terminally ill and 893 of their caregivers. Outcomes assessments were made in six domains: patient-physician relationship; access to care and use of health care; prevalence of symptoms; and planning for end-of-life care, care needs, and economic burdens. Overall, the two populations of terminally ill patients were found to have comparable outcomes, but several significant differences were present. MCO patients were more likely than their FFS counterparts to use an inconvenient hospital (P =.02), spend more than 10% of their income on medical care (P =.02), and have been bedridden more than 50% of the time during the last 4 weeks of life (P =.03). Caregivers of MCO patients were as likely as the caregivers of FFS patients to report a substantial caregiving burden (P =.59). Despite concerns about the threats of MCOs to the physician-patient relationship, few differences in the quality of the relationship between the two cohorts were found. Finally, terminally ill patients in MCOs did not show better experiences than those in FFS on any outcome measure. Additional research is required to explore how MCOs may improve upon the care available to dying patients.     

Clinical management of the terminally ill.

Physicians who provide primary care for the elderly are spending more time caring for terminally ill patients. Although curing these patients' illnesses is impossible, it is often possible to improve their quality of life and give them more control over their illness. Communication with the patient and family members, advance directives, and planning for death are important. Symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, and nausea can usually be controlled. Other health care professionals and hospice care when appropriate can also be helpful.     

Estimates of future physical functioning by seriously ill hospitalized patients,their families,and their physicians

OBJECTIVES: To compare prognostic estimates made by seriously ill hospitalized patients, their surrogates, and their physicians about the patients' activities of daily living (ADLs) 2 months after admission; compare the accuracy of their estimates; and identify factors associated with the optimism and accuracy of these estimates. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A subset (n = 716) of patients in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Prognostic estimates of ADL function. RESULTS: Physicians were less likely than patients or surrogates to give very high or very low estimates for future functioning. Seven of ten (69.3) patients who survived 2 months estimated that they would be functionally independent at Month 2, compared with 58.5 of their surrogates and 49.2 of their physicians. Agreement on prognosis was highest between patients and surrogates (64.2) and lowest between patients and physicians (48.4). Factors significantly associated with an optimistic estimate of independent functioning were better baseline ADL function, male gender, and higher level of education. Patients were significantly more accurate than surrogates and even more so than physicians in predicting independent functioning at Month 2. Worse baseline function and higher income were significantly associated with accurate estimation. CONCLUSION: At hospital admission, seriously ill patients were more optimistic about their prognosis for physical functioning at 2 months, and more accurate in their estimates, than surrogates and physicians. Physicians tended to underestimate the prognosis for future functioning. Physicians should consider patients' and families' estimates before giving advice about treatment options and discharge planning.     

Redefining death. Are we any closer to a consensus?

As medical and technologic advances blur the once-distinct lines between life and death, legal scholars and physicians struggle to maintain a consistent and ethical definition of death. Pressures created by the possibility of organ donation and the problem of terminally ill patients or those in chronic vegetative states further complicate the question.     

Preferences of Physicians and Their Patients for End-of-Life Care

OBJECTIVE: Both physicians and patients view advance directives as important, yet discussions occur infrequently. We assessed differences and correlations between physicians' and their patients' desires for end-of-life care for themselves. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Study physicians (n = 78) were residents and faculty practicing in an inner-city, academic primary care general internal medicine practice. Patients (n = 831) received primary care from these physicians and were either at least 75 or between 50 and 74 years of age, with selected morbid conditions. Physicians and patients completed identical questionnaires that included an assessment of their preferences for six specific treatments if they were terminally ill. There were significant differences between physicians' and patients' preferences for all six treatments (p < .0001), with physicians wanting less treatment than their patients for five of them. Patients desiring more care (p < .01) were more often male (odds ratio [OR] 1.7), African-American (OR 1.6), and older (OR 1.02 per year). There were no such correlates with physicians' preferences. A treatment preference score was calculated from respondents' desires to receive or refuse the six treatments. Physicians' scores were highly correlated with those of their enrolled primary care patients (r = .51, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients and physicians as groups differ substantially in their preferences for end-of-life care, there was significant correlation between individual academic physicians' preferences and those of their primary care patients. Reasons for this correlation are unknown.     

AIDS caregivers struggling with assisted suicide

A short case study of a man who chose suicide over continuing to live with AIDS introduces this discussion of assisted suicide. Oregon is the only state where physician-assisted suicide is legal; in most other states it is explicitly illegal or the law is unclear. "Rational suicide" is a commonly thought about and discussed topic among AIDS patients, and the rate of suicide in this population is more common than death certificates indicate. A Seattle-based group, Compassion in Dying, provides support and advice to dying patients who want to hasten their deaths. Before providing assistance to persons who are willing to follow its lengthy procedures, the group urges patients to explore other avenues of better pain management. The National Association of Social Workers has issued a policy supporting the presence of a social worker at an assisted suicide if requested by the client.