Explaining the Process of Determining Futility Increases Lay Public Acceptance.

Rationale: National guidelines have laid out a process to conflict resolution in cases of potentially inappropriate medical interventions. Objectives: To determine the association between information about a process-based approach and lay public perceptions of the appropriateness of withholding medically inappropriate interventions. Methods: Respondents from a nationwide sample completed a survey with two adult intensive care unit-based vignettes: one about advanced cancer where doctors told the family that additional chemotherapy would not be offered, and a second case of multiorgan failure after brain hemorrhage where dialysis would not be offered. Participants were randomly assigned to see or not see information about a detailed process for the determination to withhold (second opinion, ethics consultation, exploring transfer to another institution). The primary outcome was the perceived appropriateness of not providing the treatment (four-point scale, dichotomized for analysis, modified Poisson regression), and the secondary outcome was the negative emotional reaction to the case (positive and negative affect schedule, range 1-5, higher is greater negative emotional response, linear regression). Results: A total of 1,191 respondents were included. Providing detailed process information increased the perceived appropriateness of withholding treatment by approximately 10 percentage points in each vignette: (chemotherapy, 75.7-85.4%; dialysis, 68.0-79.3%). Process information remained associated with perceived appropriateness of withholding treatment after adjustment for order effects and prespecified respondent characteristics (chemotherapy: prevalence ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.19) (dialysis: prevalence ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25). Process information was not associated with emotional response to the cases (chemotherapy: ß = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.09) (dialysis: ß = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.10; both adjusted for order effects). Conclusions: Providing process-based conflict resolution information increased public acceptance of determinations of medical futility, supporting the practice outlined in national consensus statements.

How acceptable is paternalism? A survey-based study of clinician and nonclinician opinions on paternalistic decision making.

We conducted an empirical study to explore clinician and lay opinions on the acceptability of physician paternalism. Respondents read a vignette describing a patient with brain hemorrhage facing urgent surgery that would be lifesaving but would result in long-term severe disability. Cases were randomized to show either low or high surrogate distress and certain or uncertain prognosis, with respondents rating the acceptability of not offering brain surgery. Clinicians (N = 169) were more likely than nonclinicians (N = 649) to find the doctor withholding surgery acceptable (30.2% vs. 11.4%, p ≤ 0.001). Among clinicians, the doctor withholding surgery was more acceptable when prognosis was certain to be poor (odds ratio [OR] 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 4.01). There was no effect of surrogate distress on clinician ratings. Responses among lay public were more variable. Given the differences in attitudes across clinicians and lay public, there is an ongoing need to engage stakeholders in the process of end-of-life decision making.