ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2021
[Legal considerations in the care of patients with "terminal dehydration" in Germany].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe legal framework for fluid management in the palliative care setting varies between continents and even between countries.
objectivesWhat legal implications must be taken into account in Germany in dealing with "terminal" dehydration? MATERIALS AND
methodsRelevant publications in English and German have been identified. Notably, German recommendations and guidelines were reviewed, whereas national mindsets were contrasted with those of other countries like the United Kingdom and Canada.
resultsOur legal considerations are in line with the recommendations of the German Federal Medical Association. Key components are "patient autonomy", "best possible symptom control" and a "steady therapeutic risk-benefit assessment". Dehydration should then continue to be regarded as a "symptom" that must be "controlled" as long as it can be improved by therapeutic means and as long as the patient is not opposed to this approach. However, if dehydration remains therapeutically refractory, it is justified either not to initiate clinically assisted hydration (CAH) or to stop the ongoing therapy. The "shared decision-making model" practiced in Canada is diametrically opposed to this approach, where paternalistic decision-making is possible, provided that patients or relatives appear to be ill-informed and unprepared to decide "correct" according to expert opinion.
conclusionsA "non-refractory" state of dehydration at the end of life must not be left untreated under German law and must not be used as an option to hasten the death process if the development of dehydration does not correspond to the patient's will or if this will cannot be determined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31940061What 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.