Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:23:27.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Physicians' Own Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment Influence Their Perceptions of Patients' Preferences? A Second Look

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Lawrence J. Schneiderman ,
Robert M. Kaplan ,
Esther Rosenberg  and
Holly Teetzel
Lawrence J. Schneiderman
Affiliation:
A professor in the Departments of Family and Preventive Medicine and Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego.
Robert M. Kaplan
Affiliation:
Professor of Health Care Sciences, University of California, San Diego.
Esther Rosenberg
Affiliation:
A research associate in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego.
Holly Teetzel
Affiliation:
A research associate in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Previous studies have documented the fallibility of attempts by surrogates and physicians to act in a substituted judgment capacity and predict end-of-life treatment decisions on behalf of patients. We previously reported that physicians misperceive their patients' preferences and substitute their own preferences for those of their patients with respect to four treatments: cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the event of cardiac arrest, ventilator for an indefinite period of time, medical nutrition and hydration for an indefinite period of time, and hospitalization in the event of pneumonia.

Type
Special Section: Alpha and Omega: Ethics at the Edges of Life
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 131 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Uhlmann, RF, Pearlman, RA, Cain, KC. Physicians’ and spouses’ predictions of elderly patients’ resuscitation preferences. Journal of Gerontology 1988;43:115–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Hare, J, Pratt, C, Nelson, C. Agreement between patients and their self-selected surrogates on difficult medical decisions. Archives of Internal Medicine 1991;115:92–8.Google Scholar

3. Ouslander, JG, Tymchuk, AJ, Rahbar, R. Health care decisions among elderly long-term care residents and their potential proxies. Archives of Internal Medicine 1989;149:1367–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Danis, M, Patrick, DL, Southerland, LI, Green, ML. Patients‘ and families‘ preferences for medical intensive care. JAMA 1988;260:797–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Zweibel, NR, Cassel, CK. Treatment choices at the end of life: a comparison of decisions by older patients and their physician-selected proxies. The Gerontologist 1989;29:615–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Seckler, AB, Meier, RE, Mulvihill, M, Cammer, Paris BE. Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions? Annals of Internal Medicine 1991;115:92–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Diamond, EL, Jernigan, JA, Moseley, RA et al. , Decision-making ability and advance directive preferences in nursing home patients and proxies. The Gerontologist 1989;29:622–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Sulmasy, DP, Haller, K, Terry, PB. More talk, less paper: predicting the accuracy of substituted judgments. American Journal of Medicine 1994;96:432–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Suhl, J, Simons, P, Reedy, T, Garrick, T. Myth of substituted judgment: surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable. Archives of Internal Medicine 1994;154:90–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Schneiderman, LJ, Kaplan, RM, Pearlman, RA, Teetzel, H. Do physicians’ own preferences for life-sustaining treatment influence their perceptions of patients’ preferences? Journal of Clinical Ethics 1993;4:28–33.Google ScholarPubMed

11. Emanuel, LL¯, Emanuel, EJ. The medical directive: a new comprehensive advance care document. JAMA 1989;261:3288–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Schneiderman, LJ, Pearlman, RA, Kaplan, RM et al. , Relationship of general advance directive instructions to specific life-sustaining treatment preferences in patients with serious illness. Archives of Internal Medicine 1992;52:2114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Tsevat, J, Cook, EF, Green, ML et al. , Health values of the seriously ill. Annals of Internal Medicine 1994;122:514–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Christakis, NA, Aasch, DA. Physician characteristics associated with decisions to withdraw life support. American Journal of Public Health 1995;85:367–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. DiMatteo, MR. Health psychology research: The interpersonal challenges. In: Brannigan, GG, Merrens, MR, eds. The Social Psychologists: Research Adventures. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995. pp. 207–20.Google Scholar

16. Virmani, J, Schneiderman, LJ, Kaplan, RM. Relationship of advance directives to physician-patient communication. Archives of Internal Medicine 1994;154:909–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. Gillick, MR, Hesse, K, Mazzapica, N. Medical technology at the end of life. Archives of Internal Medicine 1993;153:2542–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. Danis, M, Patrick, DL, Southerland, LI, Green, ML. Patients’ and families’ preferences for medical intensive care. JAMA 1988;260:797–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed