| 1. |
- Andersen, Peter M., 1962-, et al.
(författare)
-
Therapeutic decisions in ALS patients : cross-cultural differences and clinical implications
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurology. - : Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. - 0340-5354 .- 1432-1459. ; 265:7, s. 1600-1606
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Quantitative analysis of decision-making on therapeutic options in different sociocultural context in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).Methods: ALS patients (n = 244) were consecutively recruited in Germany (n = 83), Poland (n = 83), and Sweden (n = 78) in a prospective cross-cultural study (www.NEEDSinALS.com). They were interviewed on preferences for therapeutic techniques including invasive (IV) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV), as well as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and on hypothetical termination of these using quantitative questions. Using standardized questionnaires, religiousness, personal values, quality of life, and depressiveness were assessed.Results: NIV was most frequently used in Germany and PEG in Sweden. Swedish patients were most liberal on initiation and termination of PEG, NIV and IV. Polish patients were mostly undecided and were least likely to consider discontinuing supportive management. Current use was partly associated with age, gender and state of physical function; also, financial support explained some variance. Future preferences on therapeutic options from the patient’s perspective were also closely associated with cultural factors. The more oriented towards traditional and conservative values, the less likely patients were to decide for invasive therapeutic devices (IV, PEG), the least likely to have ideations to discontinue any device and the more likely to have an undecided attitude.Conclusions: Current use of therapeutic options is determined by medical condition in analogy to clinical guidelines. For future considerations, other factors such as cultural background are crucial, yielding hurdles to be regarded in the implementation of advanced directives in a multicultural environment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Weber, Christian, et al.
(författare)
-
Existential decision-making in a fatal progressive disease : how much do legal and medical frameworks matter?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMC Palliative Care. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1472-684X. ; 16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Healthcare legislation in European countries is similar in many respects. Most importantly, the framework of informed consent determines that physicians have the duty to provide detailed information about available therapeutic options and that patients have the right to refuse measures that contradict their personal values. However, when it comes to end-of-life decision-making a number of differences exist in the more specific regulations of individual countries. These differences and how they might nevertheless impact patient’s choices will be addressed in the current debate.Main text: In this article we show how the legal and medical frameworks of Germany, Poland and Sweden differ with regard to end-of-life decisions for patients with a fatal progressive disease. Taking Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) as an example, we systematically compare clinical guidelines and healthcare law, pointing out the country-specific differences most relevant for existential decision-making. A fictional case report discusses the implications of these differences for a patient with ALS living in either of the three countries. Patients with ALS in Germany, Poland and Sweden are confronted with a similar spectrum of treatment options. However, the analysis of the normative frameworks shows that the conditions for making existential decisions differ considerably in Germany, Poland and Sweden. Specifically, these differences concern (1) the legal status of advance directives, (2) the conditions under which life-sustaining therapies are started or withheld, and (3) the legal regulations on assisted dying.Conclusion: According to the presented data, regulations of terminating life-sustaining treatments and the framework of “informed consent” are quite differently understood and implemented in the legal setting of the three countries. It is possible, and even likely, that these differences in the legal and medical frameworks have a considerable influence on existential decisions of patients with ALS.
|
|
