Withholding and withdrawal of treatments : differences in perceptions between intensivists, oncologists, and prosecutors in Brazil

Article indépendant

ROSA RAMOS, João Gabriel | D'OLIVEIRA VIEIRA, Roberto | CORREIA TOURINHO, Fernanda | ISMAEL, Andre | COSTA RIBEIRO, Diaulas | DE MEDEIRO, Humberto Jacques | NEVES FORTE, Daniel

Background: Legal concerns have been implicated in the occurrence of variability in decisions of limitations of medical treatment (LOMT) before death. Objective: We aimed to assess differences in perceptions between physicians and prosecutors toward LOMT. Measurements: We sent a survey to intensivists, oncologists, and prosecutors from Brazil, from February 2018 to May 2018. Respondents rated the degree of agreement with withholding or withdrawal of therapies in four different vignettes portraying a patient with terminal lung cancer. We measured the difference in agreement between respondents. Results: There were 748 respondents, with 522 (69.8%) intensivists, 106 (14.2%) oncologists, and 120 (16%) prosecutors. Most respondents agreed with withhold of chemotherapy (95.2%), withhold of mechanical ventilation (MV) (90.2%), and withdrawal of MV (78.4%), but most (75%) disagreed with withdrawal of MV without surrogate's consent. Prosecutors were less likely than intensivists and oncologists to agree with withhold of chemotherapy (95.7% vs. 99.2% vs. 100%, respectively, p < 0.001) and withhold of MV (82.4% vs. 98.3% vs. 97.9%, respectively, p < 0.001), whereas intensivists were more likely to agree with withdrawal of MV than oncologists (87.1% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.002). Moreover, prosecutors were more likely to agree with withholding of active cancer treatment than with withholding of MV [difference (95% confidence interval, CI) = 13.2% (5.2 to 21.6), p = 0.001], whereas physicians were more likely to agree with withholding than with withdrawal of MV [difference (95% CI) = 10.9% (7.8 to 14), p < 0.001]. Conclusions: This study found differences and agreements in perceptions toward LOMT between prosecutors, intensivists, and oncologists, which may inform the discourse aimed at improving end-of-life decisions.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2018.0554

Voir la revue «JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 22»

Autres numéros de la revue «JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE»

• Description
• Sujet/Public
• Outil
• Outil d'anticipation
• Gestion