A new law on advance directives in Germany

This article presents the new German law on advance directives from 1 September 2009. The history of the parliamentary process of this law is described, the present regulations are explained, their relevance for medical practice discussed and shortcomings are identified. Finally, the new law is compared with other regulations in the international context. Previously established legal practice in Germany has now become largely confirmed by the new law: An advanced directive must be respected in any decision concerning medical treatment, regardless of the stage of the illness. It can be informally revoked at any time, even with limited decision-making capacity. Nobody may be obliged to issue a directive in any way. Advance directives do not need notarisation or routine updating after certain time intervals. Provided that the patient, who is no longer mentally competent, has issued a lasting power of attorney (Bevollmachtiger), or provided that the patient has been appointed a healthcare proxy by the courts (Betreuer), this authorised surrogate must assert the patient's will. The role of the guardianship court is clarified: it only needs to be involved in cases of disagreement as to the patient's will. The new German law thus combines more legal certainty with a liberal emphasis on patient autonomy and flexible, adaptable regulations

Choosing wisely at the end of life: the crucial role of medical indication.

At the end of life, several treatments are administered routinely that lack medical indication and may cause significant harm to patients. Examples include artificial hydration and oxygen therapy in the dying phase, as well as enteral nutrition in advanced dementia. Medical indication is defined as the appropriateness of a therapeutic or diagnostic measure in the patient's concrete clinical situation, in light of the best available evidence. The decision about the absence or presence of a medical indication is a core competence of physicians. They have no obligation to perform or even mention measures that are not indicated. The decision about medical indication is a clinical compound decision, composed of both a factual, evidence-based judgement and a value judgement, which should always be patient-centred. Acknowledging the crucial role of medical indication in clinical decision making in medicine generally and at the end of life specifically opens up ways of enhancing patient-physician communication by clarifying roles, responsibilities and competencies. This may facilitate preventing overtreatment, improving patient wellbeing, and realising the patients' goals of care

Ethical challenges in palliative sedation of adults: protocol for a systematic review of current clinical practice guidelines.

This study aims to identify the full spectrum of ethical challenges of all forms of palliative sedation for adults as presented in current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to determine whether CPGs specify ethical challenges of this therapy for patients with cancer and non-cancer and, if so, how exactly they do this. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have yet investigated this topic. The purpose is purely descriptive; our aim is not to make any kind of normative judgements on these challenges. Nor is our aim to assess the quality of the CPGs. We will perform a systematic review of CPGs on palliative sedation for adults via five electronic databases, grey literature search tools, citation tracking and contact with palliative care experts. Current CPGs accredited by an international, national or regional authority, published in English, German, French, Italian or Polish, from 2000 to the date of the search, will be subjected to content analysis at the textual, linguistic and thematic levels. This is a protocol for a systematic review and no human will be involved in this research. Therefore, ethics approval and consent to participate are not applicable to this context. This study protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Protocols criteria and registered on PROSPERO. Moreover, the integral version of this study protocol is published as a preprint on Research Square. The results of this study will be actively disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and books, international, national and local conference presentations, social media and media in general

Should continuous deep sedation until death be legally regulated in Switzerland? An exploratory study with palliative care physicians

Background: In Switzerland, continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD) is not legally regulated and the current clinical practice guidelines on palliative sedation from 2005 do not refer to it. In contrast, in France, a neighbouring country, CDSUD is regulated by a specific law and professional guidelines. International studies show that in culturally polymorphic countries, there are variations in the end-of-life practices between linguistic regions and that a linguistic region shares many cultural characteristics with the neighbouring country. Objectives: This study aimed to explore the attitudes of palliative care physicians from the French-speaking part of Switzerland on the question of whether CDSUD should be legally regulated in the country, and to identify their arguments. Our study also aimed to assess whether a hypothetical Swiss law on CDSUD should be similar to the current legal regulation of this practice in France. Design: We conducted a multicentre exploratory qualitative study based on face-to-face interviews with palliative care physicians in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Methods: We analysed the interview transcripts using thematic analysis, combining deductive and inductive coding. Results: Most of the participants were opposed to having specific legal regulation of CDSUD in Switzerland. Their arguments were diverse: some focused on medical and epistemological aspects of CDSUD, whereas others emphasized the legal inconvenience of having such regulation. None had the opinion that, if CDSUD were legally regulated in Switzerland, the regulation should be similar to that in France. Conclusion: This study allows to better understand why palliative care physicians in French-speaking Switzerland may be reluctant to have legal regulation of CDSUD. Further studies covering the whole country would be needed to gain a more complete picture of Swiss palliative care physicians on this question

Decision-making ethics in regards to life-sustaining interventions: when physicians refer to what other patients decide.

Health decisions occur in a context with omnipresent social influences. Information concerning what other patients decide may present certain interventions as more desirable than others. To explore how physicians refer to what other people decide in conversations about the relevancy of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders (DNAR). We recorded forty-three physician-patient admission interviews taking place in a hospital in French-speaking Switzerland, during which CPR is discussed. Data was analysed with conversation analysis. Reference to what other people decide in regards to CPR is used five times, through reported speech. The reference is generic, and employed as a resource to deal with trouble encountered with the patient's preference, either because it is absent or potentially incompatible with the medical recommendation. In our data, it is a way for physicians to present decisional paths and to steer towards the relevancy of DNAR orders ("Patients tell us 'no futile care'"). By calling out to a sense of membership, it builds towards the patient embracing norms that are associated with a desirable or relevant social group. Introducing DNAR decisions in terms of what other people opt for is a way for physicians to bring up the eventuality of allowing natural death in a less overt way. Formulating treatment choices in terms of what other people do has implications in terms of supporting autonomous and informed decision making, since it nudges patients towards conformity with what is presented as the most preferable choice on the basis of social norms

Pediatric advance care planning from the perspective of health care professionals: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric advance care planning differs from the adult setting in several aspects, including patients' diagnoses, minor age, and questionable capacity to consent. So far, research has largely neglected the professionals' perspective. AIM: We aimed to investigate the attitudes and needs of health care professionals with regard to pediatric advance care planning. DESIGN: This is a qualitative interview study with experts in pediatric end-of-life care. A qualitative content analysis was performed. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with health care professionals caring for severely ill children/adolescents, from different professions, care settings, and institutions. RESULTS: Perceived problems with pediatric advance care planning relate to professionals' discomfort and uncertainty regarding end-of-life decisions and advance directives. Conflicts may arise between physicians and non-medical care providers because both avoid taking responsibility for treatment limitations according to a minor's advance directive. Nevertheless, pediatric advance care planning is perceived as helpful by providing an action plan for everyone and ensuring that patient/parent wishes are respected. Important requirements for pediatric advance care planning were identified as follows: repeated discussions and shared decision-making with the family, a qualified facilitator who ensures continuity throughout the whole process, multi-professional conferences, as well as professional education on advance care planning. CONCLUSION: Despite a perceived need for pediatric advance care planning, several barriers to its implementation were identified. The results remain to be verified in a larger cohort of health care professionals. Future research should focus on developing and testing strategies for overcoming the existing barriers

How family caregivers' medical and moral assumptions influence decision making for patients in the vegetative state: a qualitative interview study

Background Decisions on limiting life-sustaining treatment for patients in the vegetative state (VS) are emotionally and morally challenging. In Germany, doctors have to discuss, together with the legal surrogate (often a family member), whether the proposed treatment is in accordance with the patient's will. However, it is unknown whether family members of the patient in the VS actually base their decisions on the patient's wishes. Objective To examine the role of advance directives, orally expressed wishes, or the presumed will of patients in a VS for family caregivers' decisions on life-sustaining treatment. Methods and sample A qualitative interview study with 14 next of kin of patients in a VS in a long-term care setting was conducted; 13 participants were the patient's legal surrogates. Interviews were analysed according to qualitative content analysis. Results The majority of family caregivers said that they were aware of aforementioned wishes of the patient that could be applied to the VS condition, but did not base their decisions primarily on these wishes. They gave three reasons for this: (a) the expectation of clinical improvement, (b) the caregivers' definition of life-sustaining treatments and (c) the moral obligation not to harm the patient. If the patient's wishes were not known or not revealed, the caregivers interpreted a will to live into the patient's survival and non-verbal behaviour. Conclusions Whether or not prior treatment wishes of patients in a VS are respected depends on their applicability, and also on the medical assumptions and moral attitudes of the surrogates. We recommend repeated communication, support for the caregivers and advance care planning