Top

Supportive Care in Cancer

Published in:

01-09-2006 | Original article

Medical decision-making of the patient in the context of the family: results of a survey

Authors: Christof Schäfer, Kurt Putnik, Barbara Dietl, Peter Leiberich, Thomas H. Loew, Oliver Kölbl

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 9/2006

Abstract

Goals of the study

From the perspective of patient autonomy, the family is often looked upon as a troublemaker in medical decision-making. The question remains open as to whether it is possible to do justice to the autonomy of the individual patient and to the claims of his family at the same time.

Patients and methods

A clinical study was undertaken when both patients and dependants were interviewed. One hundred people (50 pairs) participated in this study and could be analyzed. A questionnaire consisting of 15 items was used and was evaluated to see if and how the attitudes concerning medical decision-making differ between patient and dependant.

Results

The majority of the interviewees (89%) agreed with the opinion that medical decisions should be made jointly by the patient, the family, and the doctor. Ninety-three percent approved of the claim to inform not only the patient, but also the family. Seventy percent of the patients and 54% of the dependants think that the family is entitled to have a say in matters concerning medical decision-making, only 30% of the patients, but 42% of the dependants argued against this view. Eighty-four percent of the patients argued against a change in this right at the end of life, which was approved by 32% of the family members.

Conclusions

The family plays a central role in medical decision-making. This could be shown by a survey among patients with malignant diseases and their dependants. These initial findings must be verified in a larger population. The increased inclusion of the family in the process of medical decision-making corresponds in general to the expressed will of the patients. The model of shared decision-making is favored by values which both the family and the patient have in common. Thus, a family-based decision-making theory needs to be formulated in the future.

Annas GJ (2005) Culture of life’ Politics at the bedside—The case of Terri Schiavo. New Engl J Med 352:1710–1715PubMedCrossRef

Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF et al (2005) Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology. CA Cancer J Clin 55:164–177PubMedCrossRef

Back MF, Huak CY (2005) Family centered decision-making and non-disclosure of diagnosis in a South East Asian oncology practice. Psycho-Oncology: Online First Release

Bayertz K (1999) Verantwortung. In: Sandkühler HJ (ed) Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Hamburg, pp 1683–1686

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Paternalism: conflicts between beneficence and autonomy. In: Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (eds) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 176–194

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) The meaning and justification of informed consent. In: Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (eds) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 77–80

Beaver K, Jones D, Susnerwala S et al (2005) Exploring the decision-making preferences of people with colorectal cancer. Health Expect 8:103–113PubMedCrossRef

Bruns CM, Dixon T, Broom D et al (2003) Family caregiver knowledge of treatment intent in a longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer 11(10):629–637CrossRef

Buyx AM (2005) Eigenverantwortung-Verteilungskriterium im Gesundheitswesen? Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:1512–1515PubMedCrossRef

10.

Cassell EJ (2005) The Schiavo Case: a medical perspective. Hastings Cent Rep 35:22–23PubMedCrossRef

11.

Chen M, Chu L, Chen H (2004) Impact of cancer patients’ quality of life on that of spouse caregivers. Support Care Cancer 12(7):469–475PubMedCrossRef

12.

Clayton J, Butow PN, Arnold RM, Tattersall MHN (2005) Discussing end-of-life issues with terminally ill cancer patients and their careers: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer 13:589–599PubMedCrossRef

13.

Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D et al (1997) Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 277:1485–1492PubMedCrossRef

14.

Etchells E, Sharpe G, Walsh P et al (1996) Bioethics for clinicians: 1. Consent. CMA 155:177–180

15.

Gaschke S (2005) Familienplanung. Das kinderlose Land. Hamburg. In: Zeitverlag (ed) Das Lexikon:690–694

16.

Hardwig J (2000) What about the family? Washington. In: Howell JH, Sale WF (eds) Life choices: a Hastings Center introduction to Bioethics, 2nd edn. pp 145–159

17.

Höfling W (2005) Integritätsschutz und Patientenautonomie am Lebensende. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:898–900PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hofmann B, Håheim LL, Soreide JA (2005) Ethics of palliative surgery in patients with cancer. Br J Surg 92:802–809PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hope T, Savulescu J, Hendrick J (2003) Medical ethics and law. Churchill, Livingstone

20.

Kelley M (2005) Limits on patient responsibility. J Med Philos 30:189–206PubMedCrossRef

21.

Koller M, Schmitz G, Becker K et al (2004) Welche Art von Aufklärung brauchen Krebspatienten? Patientenaufklärung und das Erleben der Strahlentherapie. Basel. In: Bartsch HH, Weis J (eds) Gemeinsame Entscheidung in der Krebstherapie

22.

Leighl N, Gattelari M, Butow P et al (2001) Discussing adjuvant cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 19(6):1768–1778PubMed

23.

Mystakidou K, Parpa E, Tsilika E et al (2004) Cancer information disclosure in different cultural contexts. Support Care Cancer 12(3):147–154PubMedCrossRef

24.

van Oorschot B, Lipp V, Tietze A et al (2005) Einstellungen zur Sterbehilfe und zu Patientenverfügungen. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von 727 Ärzten. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:261–265PubMedCrossRef

25.

Quill TE (2005) Terri Schiavo—A tragedy compounded. New Engl J Med 352:1630–1633PubMedCrossRef

26.

Sahm S, Will R, Hommel G (2005) What are cancer patients’ preferences about treatment at the end of life, and who should start talking about it? A comparison with healthy people and medical staff. Support Care Cancer 13:206–214PubMedCrossRef

27.

Sandman L (2004) On the autonomy turf. Assessing the value of autonomy to patients. Med Health Care Philos 7:261–268PubMedCrossRef

28.

Srirangam SJ, Pearson E, Grose C et al (2003) Partner’s influence on patient preference for treatment in early prostate cancer. BJU Int 92:365–369PubMedCrossRef

29.

Schäfer C, Dietl B, Putnik K et al (2002) Patient information in radiooncology. Results of a patient survey. Strahlenther Onkol 178:562–571PubMedCrossRef

30.

Schäfer C, Herbst M (2003) Ethical aspects of patient information in radiation oncology. Strahlenther Onkol 179:431–440PubMedCrossRef

31.

Schäfer C, Stadler P, Dietl B (2003) Entscheidungshilfe bei Krebs in der Schwangerschaft. Eine Einführung in die kasuistische Bioethik. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 128:887–890PubMedCrossRef

32.

Schweitzer S, Oorschot B van, Köhler N et al (2005) Der Patient und seine Familie. Einstellungen und Mitsprachemöglichkeiten von Angehörigen palliativ behandelter Tumorpatienten. Psychother Psych Med 55:298–304CrossRef

33.

Tuinman MA, Fleer, Sleijfer DT et al (2005) Martial and sexual satisfaction in testicular cancer survivor and their spouses. Support Care Cancer 13:540–548PubMedCrossRef

34.

Winterling J, Wasteson E, Sidenvall B et al (2005) Relevance of philosphy of life and optimism for psychological distress among individuals in a stage where death is approaching. Support Care Cancer. http://www.springerlink.com/media/2fal68xxvl6rrvpuupyn/contributions/u/l/g/8/ulg83740710g2502_html/fulltext.html

Title: Medical decision-making of the patient in the context of the family: results of a survey
Authors: Christof Schäfer
Kurt Putnik
Barbara Dietl
Peter Leiberich
Thomas H. Loew
Oliver Kölbl
Publication date: 01-09-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 9/2006
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-006-0025-x

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Goals of the study

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2006

G-CSF mobilised granulocyte transfusions in 32 paediatric patients with neutropenic sepsis

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for a patient with metastatic lung cancer—a case report

Higher incidence of chemotherapy induced oral mucositis in females: a supplement of multivariate analysis to a randomized multicentre study

Scoring the effect of radiotherapy for painful bone metastases

Prognostic factors affecting the outcome of brain metastases from breast cancer

Exploring concerns of children with cancer

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer