4.5 Article

End-of-life decisions in the UK involving medical practitioners

Journal

PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 198-204

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269216308102042

Keywords

continuous deep sedation; euthanasia; physician-assisted suicide; terminal care; withdrawing treatment; withholding treatment

Funding

  1. National Council for Palliative Care
  2. Age Concern
  3. Motor Neurone Disease Association
  4. Multiple Sclerosis Society
  5. Help the Hospices
  6. Macmillan Cancer Support
  7. Sue Ryder Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study estimates the frequency of different medical end-of-life decisions (ELDs) made in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2007-2008, comparing these with 2004. Postal survey was carried out with 8857 medical practitioners, of whom 3733 (42%) practitioners replied, with 2869 having attended a person who died in the previous year. The proportion of UK deaths involving (1) voluntary euthanasia (0.21%; CI: 0-0.52), (2) physician-assisted suicide (0.00%) and (3) ending of life without an explicit request from the patient (0.30%; CI: 0-0.60) is low. Better questions about ELDs showed both non-treatment decisions (21.8%; CI: 19.0-24.5) and double effect measures (17.1%; CI: 14.6-19.6) to be much less common than suggested in earlier estimates, rarely involving intent to end life or being judged to have shortened life by more than a day. Continuous deep sedation (16.5%; CI: 14.3-18.7) is relatively common in UK medical practice, particularly in hospitals, home care settings and with younger patients. Further findings about the distribution of ELDs across subgroups are also reported. Survey research in this area requires careful control over question wording if valid estimates and comparisons of the prevalence of ELDs are to be made. The high rate of sedation compared with other countries may be a cause for concern. Palliative Medicine (2009); 23: 198-204

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available