ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2014
"I don't need my patients' opinion to withdraw treatment": patient preferences at the end-of-life and physician attitudes towards advance directives in England and France.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' experiences and perceptions about withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment in Chiang Mai University Hospital: a cross-sectional study.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Factors affecting advance directives completion among older adults in Korea.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Variables that influence the medical decision regarding Advance Directives and their impact on end-of-life care.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Review
- The experience of caring for patients at the end-of-life stage in non-palliative care settings: a qualitative study.BMC palliative care · 2018Article
- Does special education in palliative medicine make a difference in end-of-life decision-making?BMC palliative care · 2018Article
- The near-failure of advance directives: why they should not be abandoned altogether, but their role radically reconsidered.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2016Article
- Solidarity and autonomy: two conflicting values in English and French health care and bioethics debates?Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2016Article
- The role of 'accompagnement' in the end-of-life debate in France: from solidarity to autonomy.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a qualitative interview study exploring English and French physicians' moral perspectives and attitudes towards end-of-life decisions when patients lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. The paper aims to examine the importance physicians from different contexts accord to patient preferences and to explore the (potential) role of advance directives (ADs) in each context. The interviews focus on (1) problems that emerge when deciding to withdraw/-hold life-sustaining treatment from both conscious and unconscious patients; (2) decision-making procedures and the participation of proxies/relatives; (3) previous experience with ADs and views on their usefulness; and (4) perspectives on ways in which the decision-making processes in question might be improved. The analysis reveals differences in the way patient preferences are taken into consideration and shows how these differences influence the reasons physicians in each country invoke to justify their reluctance to adhering to ADs. Identifying cultural differences that complicate efforts to develop the practical implementation of ADs can help to inform national policies governing ADs and to better adapt them to practice.
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.