Hildén H-M, Louhiala P, Palo J
Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Pajalahdentie 9B23, 00200 Helsinki, Finland.
J Med Ethics. 2004 Aug;30(4):362-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.001081.
This study investigated Finnish physicians' experiences of decisions concerning living wills and do not resuscitate (DNR) orders and also their views on the role of patients and family members in these decisions.
A questionnaire was sent to 800 physicians representing the following specialties: general practice (n = 400); internal medicine (n = 207); neurology (n = 100), and oncology (n = 93).
The response rate was 56%. Most of the respondents had a positive attitude toward (92%), and respect for (86%) living wills, and 72% reported situations in which such a will would have been helpful, although experience with their use was limited. The physicians reported both benefits and problems with living wills. Thirteen per cent had completed a living will of their own. Half did not consider living wills to be reliable if they were several years old. Do not resuscitate orders were interpreted in two ways: resuscitation forbidden (70%) or only palliative (symptom oriented) care required (30%). The respondents also documented DNR orders differently. Seventy two per cent discussed DNR decisions always or often with patients able to communicate, and even 76% discussed DNR orders with the family members of patients unable to communicate. Most respondents were able to approach a dying patient without difficulty. They also felt that education in general was needed.
In general Finnish physicians accept living wills, but find they are accompanied by several problems. Many problems could be avoided if physicians and patients conducted progressive discussions about living wills. The differing interpretations of DNR orders are a matter of concern in that they may affect patient treatment. The promotion of patient autonomy with respect to treatment seems rather good, but the limitations of the study need to be kept in mind.
本研究调查了芬兰医生在关于生前预嘱和不进行心肺复苏(DNR)医嘱决策方面的经验,以及他们对患者及其家属在这些决策中所起作用的看法。
向代表以下专业的800名医生发送了问卷:全科医学(n = 400);内科(n = 207);神经科(n = 100)和肿瘤科(n = 93)。
回复率为56%。大多数受访者对生前预嘱持积极态度(92%)并表示尊重(86%),72%的受访者报告了生前预嘱可能会有帮助的情况,尽管他们对其使用的经验有限。医生们报告了生前预嘱的益处和问题。13%的医生自己完成了生前预嘱。一半的医生认为如果生前预嘱是几年前的就不可靠。不进行心肺复苏医嘱有两种解释:禁止复苏(70%)或仅需要姑息(以症状为导向)护理(30%)。受访者记录DNR医嘱的方式也不同。72%的受访者总是或经常与有沟通能力的患者讨论DNR决策,甚至76%的受访者与无沟通能力患者的家属讨论DNR医嘱。大多数受访者能够毫无困难地接近临终患者。他们还认为总体上需要进行教育。
总体而言,芬兰医生接受生前预嘱,但发现其存在一些问题 如果医生和患者就生前预嘱进行深入讨论,许多问题是可以避免的。对DNR医嘱的不同解释令人担忧,因为这可能会影响患者的治疗。在治疗方面促进患者自主权的情况似乎相当不错,但需要牢记研究的局限性。