Continuous Deep Sedation and Euthanasia in Pediatrics: Does One Really Exclude the Other for Terminally Ill Patients?

Debates on morally acceptable and lawful end-of-life (EOL) practices in pediatrics were reignited by the recent amendment in Belgian law to allow euthanasia for minors of any age who meet the criteria for capacity. Euthanasia and its legalization in pediatrics are often opposed based on the availability of aggressive palliative sedation. For terminally ill patients, this type of sedation is often identified as continuous and deep sedation until death (CDS). We demonstrate that this reasoning is based on flawed assumptions: (1) CDS is a morally preferable alternative to euthanasia; (2) CDS can meet the same patient needs as euthanasia; (3) children lack the capacity and experience to make EOL decisions; (4) unlike euthanasia, CDS does not raise capacity issues. Our aim is not to reject CDS as a valid option at the EOL, nor to offer a clear-cut defense of euthanasia for minors, but to emphasize the ethical issues with both practices.

Participation in pediatric oncology: views of child and adolescent patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to explore patient's perspectives in pediatric oncology on participation in discussions and decision-making surrounding their cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Seventeen patients between 9 and 17 years of age receiving treatment at centers of the Swiss Pediatric Oncology Group were interviewed for this study. Their interview data was analyzed qualitatively to identify themes with regard to participation in medical communication and/or decision-making. RESULTS: Participants highlighted how their roles in health care discussions varied from direct participation to indirect involvement. Overall, there were fewer accounts of involvement in decision-making than in overall health care discussions. Challenges with regard to completely understanding the information provided and making decisions were identified. Participants also discussed situations when they were not involved in medical communication or decision-making. While they generally valued their participation, the preferred level of involvement oscillated between participants as well as within one and the same child across time. CONCLUSIONS: The complex pattern of participation found in this study calls for a flexible model of involving children and adolescents in health care that accounts for the varying roles and preferences that they manifest. A patient may appreciate active involvement in some decisions while choosing to remain in the background for others. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cancer care in Romania: challenges and pitfalls of children's and adolescents' multifaceted involvement.

Communication about diagnosis and medical treatment for children suffering from life-threatening illnesses is complex. It is a primary step in involving underage patients and families in care and lays the foundation for obtaining parental permission and patient assent for treatment. In practice child participation in care is often difficult to obtain due to patients' different and sometimes fluctuating preferences, but also parents' protective strategies. Physicians may be susceptible to parental wishes to limit information and feel uncomfortable discussing issues related to uncertainty of cure with patients. A qualitative study in Romanian paediatric oncology units was conducted to explore children's involvement from the perspectives of parents and oncologists. Interviews with participants discussed 18 patient cases. Data were transcribed and thematic analysis was used to interpret and mine patients' involvement during treatment. Different facets of patient participation were identified: restricting, widening and enhancing involvement. A fourth category, unintentional involvement, occurred for all patients due to children's observations during long-term hospitalisations and access to Internet. Uncertainty overarched parental attitudes regarding the extent to which children should be included. Physicians usually complied with parental wishes to limit involvement, but together with parents involved patients at least in a practical way. Adults' protective attitude may backfire, as adolescents' online searches often expose patients to worse-case scenarios. Further research should acknowledge the hazards of restricted diagnosis disclosure and develop clinician tools to support families in communicating with patients. This should be paralleled by physician efforts to elicit patients' needs regarding participation.

Parents' Challenges and Physicians' Tasks in Disclosing Cancer to Children. A Qualitative Interview Study and Reflections on Professional Duties in Pediatric Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Professional guidelines encourage physicians to provide children with as much information regarding their health as deemed developmentally and emotionally appropriate. However, empirical research indicates that in clinical practice, an open discussion with children about cancer is often lacking. This study explores impeding factors to and possible strategies for open communication of cancer diagnosis to children from the perspectives of parents and physicians. PROCEDURE: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 parents of children with cancer and 10 treating oncologists. The patient sample was obtained from three pediatric units in Romania. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and interpreted using thematic analysis. Inductive open-coding procedures identified participants' accounts regarding their experiences with cancer diagnosis and treatment. Final themes were selected by grouping codes that formed a pattern in the data. RESULTS: An interplay of mainly three different factors-information overload and emotional turmoil, lack of knowledge and skills for disclosing the diagnosis, and assumptions about burdening the child when discussing cancer-restricted parent-patient communication and subsequently affected physician-patient exchanges. Oncologists recommended open communication at diagnosis, but left the final decision to the parents. They adapted their communication style with patients to parents' preference. CONCLUSIONS: Although physicians need to respect the wishes of children's legal representatives, they also have a duty to promote patients' best interests. We recommend that physicians employ a proactive stance in ensuring that children with cancer are appropriately informed about their diagnosis. In case of parents' arduous objections to full disclosure, an ethical consultation should be considered.

Decision-making capacity of children and adolescents--suggestions for advancing the concept's implementation in pediatric healthcare.

UNLABELLED: Within the frameworks of shared decision-making and participation in healthcare, children's ability to understand and appreciate information pertaining to illness and treatment is important. Physicians are mainly responsible for assessing decision-making capacity (DMC) but may encounter difficulties arising from the limited basis of evidence with regard to this concept in pediatrics. Three issues contributing to this paucity of knowledge on DMC of children can be identified: (1) conceptual blurriness and absence of clear terminology, (2) lack of validated tools to reliably assess DMC in the pediatric population, and (3) a need to include a developmental framework to understand DMC in children and adolescents. The aim of this paper is to examine these three issues and provide practical recommendations to advance the concept and its assessment in pediatrics as a step to ensuring children's developmentally appropriate participation in healthcare. Finally, the paper highlights the ethical dimension of assessing DMC emphasizing the importance of physicians' attitudes for the assessment process. CONCLUSION: A detailed understanding of DMC is necessary to inform developmentally appropriate participation. In order to achieve this, pediatric practice needs to address challenges that are specific to providing healthcare for children, including conceptual issues, assessment, and aspects of child development.

Decision making in pediatric oncology: Views of parents and physicians in two European countries.

BACKGROUND: Decision making is a highly complex task when providing care for seriously ill children. Physicians, parents, and children face many challenges when identifying and selecting from available treatment options. METHODS: This qualitative interview study explored decision-making processes for children with cancer at different stages in their treatment in Switzerland and Romania. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of interviews conducted with parents and oncologists identified decision making as a heterogeneous process in both countries. Various decisions were made based on availability and reasonableness of care options. In most cases, at the time of diagnosis, parents were confronted with a "choiceless choice"-that is, there was only one viable option (a standard protocol), and physicians took the lead in making decisions significant for health outcomes. Parents' and sometimes children's role increased during treatment when they had to make decisions regarding research participation and aggressive therapy or palliative care. Framing these results within the previously described Decisional Priority in Pediatric Oncology Model (DPM) highlights family's more prominent position when making elective decisions regarding quality-of-life or medical procedures, which had little effect on health outcomes. The interdependency between oncologists, parents, and children is always present. Communication, sharing of information, and engaging in discussions about preferences, values, and ultimately care goals should be decision making's foundation. CONCLUSIONS: Patient participation in these processes was reported as sometimes limited, but parents and oncologists should continue to probe patients' abilities and desire to be involved in decision making. Future research should expand the DPM and explore how decisional priority and authority can be shared by oncologists with parents and even patients.

Parents' and patients' experiences with paediatric oncology care in Switzerland--satisfaction and some hurdles.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: This paper explores parents' and patients' satisfaction with care in Swiss paediatric oncology settings and examines difficulties experienced while undergoing treatment for cancer. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 19 parents, and with 17 children who were diagnosed with cancer and receiving treatment. During these interviews questions pertaining to communication and decision-making at time of diagnosis and throughout the illness course were asked. In this paper, we examined these interviews using thematic coding to identify themes with regard to satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Generally, participants reported being very content with the care they received. Aspects that contributed to satisfaction were the friendliness and responsive nature of healthcare staff; helpful communication; and professionals going beyond their duties to care for the family. In spite of mainly being pleased with the care they received, participants underlined several issues that made their experiences at times difficult. These included frequent change of physician or receiving care from another unit, which for them represented lack of continuity of care; language problems; and challenges with reproductive health issues of the child. Additionally, patients suggested several ways to improve hospital stays and thereby patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Participants reported being very satisfied with care delivered by paediatric oncology units. Nevertheless, they also identified problems that are worth addressing in order to efficiently tend to the needs of patients and families undergoing this difficult experience. Future research is needed to explore how care for children with cancer and their families can be further improved.