This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Results of a Nationwide Study

Loes Pijnenborg, MD; Paul J. van der Maas, MD, PhD; Jan W. P. F. Kardaun, MD, PhD; Jacobus J. Glerum, MD, PhD; Johannes J. M. van Delden, MD, PhD; Caspar W. N. Looman, MSc

Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(3):286-292.

Abstract
Background
Decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment (nontreatment decisions) become increasingly important because they have to be made more frequently and more explicitly. This nationwide study provides information on the occurrence and background of these nontreatment decisions.

Methods
Three studies were undertaken: interviews with 405 physicians, 5197 answered questionnaires concerning deceased persons, and information about 2257 deaths collected by a prospective study.

Results
Of all deaths, 30% appeared to be sudden and unexpected. In 39% of all nonsudden deaths, a nontreatment decision was made. This percentage varied by specialty (28% to 55%). Nontreatment decisions were made more often in older female patients. The decisions were made at the explicit request of the patient (19%), after discussion with the patient or after a previous wish (22%), or without any involvement of the patient (59%). Of this last group, 87% of patients were not competent at the time of the decision. In 24% of cases of nontreatment, life was shortened by at least a week. Of all physicians interviewed, 56% had changed their attitude since the beginning of their practice, most of them toward more nontreatment decisions at the end of life.

Conclusions
Nontreatment decisions are made frequently in medical practice. Most often the physician has to weigh medical and nonmedical burdens and benefits. For this to be done properly, the patient should be involved whenever possible. Other requirements are optimal palliative treatment, better prognostic knowledge, consultation of other specialists, and the absence of defensive motives.

(Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:286-292)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam (Drs Pijnenborg and van der Maas and Mr Looman); Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg (Drs Kardaun and Glerum); and Center for Bio-ethics and Health Law, Utrecht University (Dr van Delden), the Netherlands.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Forgoing Treatment at the End of Life in 6 European Countries
Bosshard et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:401-407.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Stagnation in Mortality Decline Among Elders in The Netherlands
Janssen et al.
Gerontologist 2003;43:722-734.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Decision making in terminal care: a survey of Finnish doctors' treatment decisions in end-of-life scenarios involving a terminal cancer and a terminal dementia patient
Hinkka et al.
Palliat Med 2002;16:195-204.
ABSTRACT  

Factors affecting physicians' decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatments in terminal care
Hinkka et al.
J. Med. Ethics 2002;28:109-114.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Nationwide Study of Decisions to Forego Life-Prolonging Treatment in Dutch Medical Practice
Groenewoud et al.
Arch Intern Med 2000;160:357-363.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Significant changes in the terminal care of aged patients in the long-term care in Helsinki
Visapaa
Scand J Public Health 1998;26:53-55.
ABSTRACT  

Discontinuation of Dialysis Is Not Euthanasia-Reply
Carlson and Shahryar
Arch Intern Med 1995;155:1681-1682.
ABSTRACT