ArticleJournal of medical ethics2006
Decisions at the end of life: an empirical study on the involvement, legal understanding and ethical views of preregistration house officers.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing doctors' legal compliance across three Australian states for decisions whether to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment: does different law lead to different decisions?BMC palliative care · 2017Article
- Medical Students' Development of Ethical Judgment - Exploring the Learners' Perspectives using a mixed methods approach.GMS journal for medical education · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo collect information on the involvement, legal understanding and ethical views of preregistration house officers (PRHO) regarding end-of-life decision making in clinical practice.
designStructured telephone interviews.
participants104 PRHO who responded.
main outcome measuresInformation on the frequency and quality of involvement of PRHO in end-of-life decision making, their legal understanding and ethical views on do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order and withdrawal of treatment.
resultsMost PRHO participated in team discussions on the withdrawal of treatment (n = 95, 91.3%) or a DNR order (n = 99, 95.2%). Of them, 46 (44.2%) participants had themselves discussed the DNR order with patients. In all, it was agreed by 84 (80.8%) respondents that it would be unethical to make a DNR order on any patient who is competent without consulting her or him. With one exception, it was indicated by the participants that patients who are competent may refuse tube feeding (n = 103, 99.0%) and 101 (97.1%) participants thought that patients may refuse intravenous nutrition. The withdrawal of artificial ventilation in incompetent patients with serious and permanent brain damage was considered to be morally appropriate by 95 (91.3%) and 97 (93.3%) thought so about the withdrawal of antibiotics. The withdrawal of intravenous hydration was considered by 67 (64.4%) to be morally appropriate in this case.
conclusionsPRHO are often involved with end-of-life decision making. The results on ethical and legal understanding about the limitations of treatment may be interpreted as a positive outcome of the extensive undergraduate teaching on this subject. Future empirical studies, by a qualitative method, may provide valuable information about the arguments underlying the ethical views of doctors on the limitations of different types of medical treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.