Objectives: After years of public discussion too little is still known about willingness to accept the idea of writing an advance directive among various groups of people in EU countries. We investigated knowledge about and willingness to accept such a directive in cancer patients, healthy controls, physicians, and nursing staff in Germany.Methods: Cancer patients, healthy controls, nursing staff, and physicians were surveyed by means of a structured questionnaire.Results: Only 18% and 19% of the patients and healthy controls respectively, and 10% (...) of the medical staff had written an advance directive. However, 50–81% of those surveyed indicated that they wished to write one. This intention was associated with deteriorating health . Only 29% of the healthy controls and 43% of the patients knew about the possibility of appointing a health care proxy. A majority in all groups believed that advance directives may influence the course of treatment , yet half of those surveyed in all groups fear that patients could be pressurised into writing an advance directive, and 38–65% thought that relatives could abuse such documents.Conclusions: Only a minority of the participants had written an advance directive and knew about the possibility of authorising a health care proxy. Deteriorating health was associated with increasing willingness to make a directive. Despite a majority belief that advance directives may influence treatment at the end of life, other factors limit their employment, such as fear of abuse. (shrink)

In September 1998 the Bundesrztekammer, i.e., the German Medical Association, published new principles concerning terminal medical care. Even before publication, a draft of these principles was very controversial, and prompted intense public debate in the mass media. Despite some of the critics' suspicions that the principles prepared the way for liberalization of active euthanasia, euthanasia is unequivocally rejected in the principles. Physician-assisted suicide is considered to violate professional medical rules. In leaving aside some of the notions customarily used in the (...) euthanasia debate, e.g., passive euthanasia, the principles emphasize the obligation of physicians to offer and the right of patients to receive palliative care. The principles explicitly list modalities of basic treatment that are indispensable in all cases, such as the obligation to satisfy hunger and thirst. This statement is meant to resolve the dispute on nutrition and hydration at the end of life, as it shifts the focus of care from maintaining physiological parameters to satisfying subjective needs. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, artificial feeding is held to be obligatory. Yet, the principles make reference to recent German jurisdiction which permit the stopping of artificial feeding if it is in accordance with the patient's presumed will. Additionally, the wording concerning this issue is found to remain unclear. Patients' autonomy is strengthened by explicitly welcoming advance directives as a means to ascertain patients' wills. The principles mark some changes compared to earlier documents. They deserve careful analysis and should be considered in the international debate on issues concerning the end of life. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie jüngste höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zur Selbstbestimmung der Patienten und zur Normierung medizinischer Handlungen am Lebensende hat eine intensive Debatte ausgelöst. Das Urteil und die akademisch vorgetragene Kritik werden einer grundlegenden medizinethischen Analyse unterworfen. Sie betrifft die objektive Eingrenzung der Zulässigkeit einer Behandlungsbegrenzung und die Subsumtion des Wachkomas als irreversibel tödliches Grundleiden, das ärztliche Ermessen bei der Indikationsstellung, die normative Einordnung einer Ernährungstherapie am Lebensende und die Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen. Die medizinethische Kritik offenbart eine unzureichende Wahrnehmung medizinischer und medizinethischer professioneller Dokumente (...) und den Rückgriff auf medizinethisch veraltete Konzeptionen der Sterbehilfe durch das Gericht. Die Folge ist eine fehlerhafte Subsumtion der Wachkomapatienten in die Kategorie irreversibel tödlicher Erkrankungen und eine inhaltliche Schwächung der Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen. Beides bedarf dringend der Korrektur. (shrink)

Advance directives are propagated as instruments to maintain patients’ autonomy in case they can no longer decide for themselves. It has been never been examined whether patients’ and healthy persons themselves are inclined to adhere to these documents. Patients’ and healthy persons’ views on whether instructions laid down in advance directives should be followed because that is (or is not) “the right thing to do”, not because one is legally obliged to do so, were studied and compared with that of (...) medical staff. Method: Vignette study presenting five cases. Cancer patients, healthy persons, nursing staff and physicians (n = 100 in each group) were interviewed. An adherence score was calculated (maximum value 5). The adherence score is found to be low in all groups, yet lowest in patients (1.55; standard deviation 1.13) and healthy controls (1.60; 1.37). The scores are significantly different between nursing staff on the one hand and patients and healthy controls on the other (p < 0.005 and p < 0.05, respectively), and between doctors and patients (p < 0.05). Interviewees who want these documents to be followed tend to live alone and to have already written an advance directive. Conclusions: Cancer patients and healthy persons widely disregard instructions laid down in advance directives and consider them less binding than physicians and nursing staff do. Only a minority tends to adhere more to advance directives. To improve decision-making at the end of life when patients are no longer able to decide for themselves alternative concepts, such as advanced care planning, should be considered. (shrink)

Diminishing resources seem to be forcing rationing of medical services. Rationing the public health care system means that there needs to be ethical discussion on justice. Several years before resource allocation could impact on the levels of morbidity and mortality, economic problems created numerous methods of regulating medical and nursing services. In clinical practice, regularisation means a reduction of the possibility to decide autonomously and therefore requires specific ethical discussion. The different methods of regularisation from standards and quality control to (...) managed care are discussed with respect to their influence on medical thinking and decision making. Formalised decisions in severe disease can also be a field for regularisation, for example guidelines on the termination of life sustaining treatment (vs. Do-Not-Attempt-Resuscitation Orders). The debate on futility is discussed as a part of the economic discussion, with special regard to the impact of the macroeconomic situation on ”peripheral” medical decisions, which very often are made unconsciously, as shown by a new German study. It is impossible to discuss the influence of macroeconomy, different attempts at regularisation and the individual decision of the doctor without reflecting on their principle interdependency. Ethical reflection in this field cannot be sectioned into an economic, medical decision-making and futility sections. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie jüngste höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung zur Selbstbestimmung der Patienten und zur Normierung medizinischer Handlungen am Lebensende hat eine intensive Debatte ausgelöst. Das Urteil und die akademisch vorgetragene Kritik werden einer grundlegenden medizinethischen Analyse unterworfen. Sie betrifft die objektive Eingrenzung der Zulässigkeit einer Behandlungsbegrenzung und die Subsumtion des Wachkomas als irreversibel tödliches Grundleiden, das ärztliche Ermessen bei der Indikationsstellung, die normative Einordnung einer Ernährungstherapie am Lebensende und die Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen. Die medizinethische Kritik offenbart eine unzureichende Wahrnehmung medizinischer und medizinethischer professioneller Dokumente (...) und den Rückgriff auf medizinethisch veraltete Konzeptionen der Sterbehilfe durch das Gericht. Die Folge ist eine fehlerhafte Subsumtion der Wachkomapatienten in die Kategorie irreversibel tödlicher Erkrankungen und eine inhaltliche Schwächung der Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen. Beides bedarf dringend der Korrektur. (shrink)

Background Teamwork in emergency medical services is a very important factor in efforts to improve patient safety. The potential differences of staff gender on communication, patient safety, and teamwork were omitted. The aim of this study is to evaluate these inadequately examined areas. Methods A descriptive and anonymous study was conducted with an online questionnaire targeting emergency physicians and paramedics. The participants were asked about teamwork, communication, patient safety and handling of errors. Results Seven hundred fourteen prehospital professionals from all (...) over Germany participated. A total of 65.7% of the women harmed a patient (men 72.9%), and 52.6% were ashamed when mistakes were made (men 31.7%). 19.0% of the female participants considered their communication skills to be very good, compared to 81% of the men. More women than men did not want to appear incompetent (28.4%, 15.5%) and therefore did not speak openly about mistakes. Both genders saw the character of their colleagues as a reason for poor team communication (women 89.4%, men 84.9.%). Under high stress, communication decreased (women 35.9%, men 31.0%) and expression became inaccurate (women 18.7%, men 20.1%). Conclusions Team communication problems and teamwork in rescue services are independent of gender. Women seem to have more difficulty with open communication about mistakes because they seem to be subject to higher expectations. Work organization should be adapted to women’s needs to enable more effective error management. We conclude that it is necessary to promote a positive error and communication culture to increase patient safety. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungIm Gesetzentwurf des Bundesrates zur Änderung des Betreuungsrechts ist eine regelhafte Stellvertretung durch Angehörige für zur Entscheidung unfähige Patienten vorgesehen. Mithilfe eines strukturierten Fragebogens wurden die Einstellungen von Tumorpatienten, gesunden Kontrollpersonen, Pflegenden und Ärzten zur Präferenz der zu bevollmächtigenden Personen ermittelt. Nur 10–20% der Befragten haben eine Patientenverfügung verfasst. Als Entscheidungbefugte im Falle akuter Erkrankung werden Angehörige und Ärzte gemeinsam genannt. Als Gesundheitsbevollmächtigte werden Ehepartner/lebenspartner bevorzugt und nichtangehörige Personen nur von einer Minderheit genannt. Die grundsätzliche Bereitschaft, als Gesundheitsbevollmächtigte Verantwortung zu (...) übernehmen, ist hoch, erstreckt sich jedoch überwiegend auf Angehörige. Nur Ärzte sind in bis zu 50% auch für nichtangehörige Personen bereit, als Bevollmächtigte zu entscheiden. Die regelhafte Stellvertretung in Gesundheitsfragen durch Angehörige entspricht den Wünschen der Mehrheit von Tumorpatienten, gesunden Vergleichspersonen und medizinischem Personal. (shrink)

Medical practitioners owe much of the significant progress made in the diagnosis and treatment of disease to industrial research. Hence, co-operation between providers of medical services, most notably medical practitioners, and the pharmaceutical industry is in the best interest of patients. Yet, empirical evidence shows how well-directed influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry impacts physicians’ decision-making. Profit-motivated inducement by the pharmaceutical industry may expose patients to considerable risks. Against what many think to be based on overwhelming evidence, Joao Calinas-Correia takes (...) the view that the criticism levelled at the pharmaceutical industry as well as the call for transparency in the relationships between physicians and the industry are exaggerated. In his polemic he praises “Big Pharma” as a success and espouses the view that the undesired consequences of its activities are allegedly inherent in the underlying market environment shaped by politics. Moreover, he believes that the proposals made to control and eliminate such undesired effects will lead to mediocrity. Astonishingly, his polemic reaches out to contest the appropriateness of setting rules at all—even if being set by a democratic process. Calinas-Correia’s assertions are based on the wrong premises. They fail to recognize that today individual civil rights and liberties often enough do not have to be defended against encroachments by governmental authorities. Rather, it is incumbent on the state to create rules designed to defend the individual against infringements by overly powerful non-governmental institutions, in our case the medical-industrial complex. Given the power exercised by physicians and the special nature of their role in public health, clear-cut rules have to be enacted and implemented with respect to their relationship to Big Pharma. (shrink)

The current article deals with the ethics and practice of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and dying. The debate about PAS must take the important legal and ethical context of medical acts at the end of life into consideration, and cannot be examined independently from physicians’ duties with respect to care for the terminally ill and dying. The discussion in Germany about active euthanasia, limiting medical intervention at the end of life, patient autonomy, advanced directives, and PAS is not fundamentally different in (...) content and arguments from discussions led in other European countries and the United States. This must be emphasized, since it is occasionally claimed that in Germany a thorough discussion could not be held with the same openness as in other countries due to Germany’s recent history. Still, it is worthwhile to portray the debate, which has been held intensively both among experts and the German public, from the German perspective. In general, it can be stated that in Germany debates about questions of medical ethics and bioethics are taking place with relatively large participation of an interested public, as shown, for instance, by the intense recent discussions about the legalisation of advanced directives on June 18 2009, the generation and use of embryonic stem cells in research or the highly difficult challenges for the prioritizing and rationing of scarce resources within the German health care system. Hence, the current article provides some insights into central medical and legal documents and the controversial public debate on the regulation of end-of-life medical care. In conclusion, euthanasia and PAS as practices of direct medical killing or medically assisted killing of vulnerable persons as “due care” is to be strictly rejected. Instead, we propose a more holistically-oriented palliative concept of a compassionate and virtuous doctor-cared dying that is embedded in an ethics of care. (shrink)

Empirical research has proven the influence exerted by the medical industry on physicians’ decision-making. Physicians are the gatekeepers who determine how money is spent within the healthcare system. Hence, they are the target group of powerful lobbies in the field, i.e. the manufacturers of medical devices and the pharmaceutical industry. As clinical research lies in the hands of physicians, they play an exclusive and central role in launching new medical products. There are many ethical problems involved here: physicians may develop (...) a mindset of entitlement; biased decisions may put patients at risk; academic interests and research activities will no longer be free if they are influenced considerably by financial incentives; fair resource allocation may be restricted. An aspect that has been neglected so far is the administrators’ involvement as they not rarely expect physicians to acquire external financial resources from industry as benefits often lie with the institutions. To “protect” physicians from undue sway may be in the best interest of patients in order to guarantee a fair allocation of resources and to prevent the application of technologies (and medications) that would not have been used according to current standards of care. The latter may and obviously does put patients at risk. On the other hand, medico–industrial relations are of great importance. A considerable part of medical progress is driven by private industry. Yet, any co-operation between those who care for patients and industry ultimately has to serve the patient. Hence, strong policies to guide conduct are sorely needed. The following points are held to be pivotal in order to secure ethical conduct: (1) professional codes of ethics; (2) a stronger academic attitude amongst medical staff, (3) rules of transparency for medico−industrial relations including online disclosure and limiting scale of payments, (4) establishing rules (and laws) that ban unethical conduct and mandate vigorous surveillance of adherence to guidelines. (shrink)

Medical practitioners owe much of the significant progress made in the diagnosis and treatment of disease to industrial research. Hence, co-operation between providers of medical services, most notably medical practitioners, and the pharmaceutical industry is in the best interest of patients. Yet, empirical evidence shows how well-directed influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry impacts physicians’ decision-making. Profit-motivated inducement by the pharmaceutical industry may expose patients to considerable risks. Against what many think to be based on overwhelming evidence, Joao Calinas-Correia takes (...) the view that the criticism levelled at the pharmaceutical industry as well as the call for transparency in the relationships between physicians and the industry are exaggerated. In his polemic he praises “Big Pharma” as a success and espouses the view that the undesired consequences of its activities are allegedly inherent in the underlying market environment shaped by politics. Moreover, he believes that the proposals made to control and eliminate such undesired effects will lead to mediocrity. Astonishingly, his polemic reaches out to contest the appropriateness of setting rules at all—even if being set by a democratic process. Calinas-Correia’s assertions are based on the wrong premises. They fail to recognize that today individual civil rights and liberties often enough do not have to be defended against encroachments by governmental authorities. Rather, it is incumbent on the state to create rules designed to defend the individual against infringements by overly powerful non-governmental institutions, in our case the medical-industrial complex. Given the power exercised by physicians and the special nature of their role in public health, clear-cut rules have to be enacted and implemented with respect to their relationship to Big Pharma. (shrink)