ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Physicians and relatives facing end-of-life decisions in intensive care: ethical insights from a comparison of French and American models.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecisions to limit life-sustaining treatment (LST) in intensive care frequently generate ethical tensions between physicians and patients' relatives. Although France and the United States both emphasize respect for patient autonomy, their decisional frameworks allocate different roles to physicians and surrogates, raising questions about how these models shape ethical practice. The aim of this study was to compare French and American approaches to LST decision-making to identify shared ethical difficulties in physician-relative interactions beyond framework differences.
methodsQualitative comparative analysis combining a review of decisional frameworks with semi-structured interviews of intensivists and ethicists in France and the United States. Data were analyzed thematically.
resultsThree recurrent ethical issues emerged across both contexts. First, while patient autonomy remains a central normative reference, its implementation is limited by the scarcity, ambiguity, and contextual inadequacy of advance directives, as well as uncertainties in interpreting patients' wishes through relatives. Second, irrespective of formal decision-making authority, physicians report a strong sense of moral responsibility grounded in medical expertise and professional integrity, often associated with moral distress when asked to provide treatments perceived as non-beneficial. Third, conflicts with relatives commonly arise from value-based disagreements regarding proportionality of care and perceived medical futility.
conclusionDespite contrasting legal models - physician-led decision-making in France and surrogate-led decision-making in the United States - ethical tensions surrounding LST decisions appear largely similar. These findings suggest that procedural frameworks alone are insufficient to address the moral complexity of end-of-life decision-making, underscoring the need to strengthen ethical deliberation, and recognition of shared moral responsibility between physicians and relatives.
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.