Bito Seiji, Asai Atsushi
National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, 2-5-1, Higashigaoka, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8902, Japan.
BMC Med Ethics. 2007 Jun 19;8:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-8-7.
Evidence concerning how Japanese physicians think and behave in specific clinical situations that involve withholding or withdrawal of medical interventions for end-of-life or frail elderly patients is yet insufficient.
To analyze decisions and actions concerning the withholding/withdrawal of life-support care by Japanese physicians, we conducted cross-sectional web-based internet survey presenting three scenarios involving an elderly comatose patient following a severe stroke. Volunteer physicians were recruited for the survey through mailing lists and medical journals. The respondents answered questions concerning attitudes and behaviors regarding decision-making for the withholding/withdrawal of life-support care, namely, the initiation/withdrawal of tube feeding and respirator attachment.
Of the 304 responses analyzed, a majority felt that tube feeding should be initiated in these scenarios. Only 18% felt that a respirator should be attached when the patient had severe pneumonia and respiratory failure. Over half the respondents felt that tube feeding should not be withdrawn when the coma extended beyond 6 months. Only 11% responded that they actually withdrew tube feeding. Half the respondents perceived tube feeding in such a patient as a "life-sustaining treatment," whereas the other half disagreed. Physicians seeking clinical ethics consultation supported the withdrawal of tube feeding (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 2.5-16.3; P < 0.001).
Physicians tend to harbor greater negative attitudes toward the withdrawal of life-support care than its withholding. On the other hand, they favor withholding invasive life-sustaining treatments such as the attachment of a respirator over less invasive and long-term treatments such as tube feeding. Discrepancies were demonstrated between attitudes and actual behaviors. Physicians may need systematic support for appropriate decision-making for end-of-life care.
关于日本医生在涉及为临终或体弱老年患者停止或撤除医疗干预的特定临床情况下的思维和行为的证据仍然不足。
为了分析日本医生关于停止/撤除生命支持治疗的决策和行动,我们开展了一项基于网络的横断面调查,呈现了三个涉及严重中风后老年昏迷患者的场景。通过邮件列表和医学期刊招募志愿医生参与调查。受访者回答了关于停止/撤除生命支持治疗决策的态度和行为的问题,即开始/停止鼻饲和使用呼吸机。
在分析的304份回复中,大多数人认为在这些场景中应该开始鼻饲。只有18%的人认为当患者患有严重肺炎和呼吸衰竭时应该使用呼吸机。超过一半的受访者认为当昏迷持续超过6个月时不应停止鼻饲。只有11%的受访者表示他们实际停止了鼻饲。一半的受访者将此类患者的鼻饲视为“维持生命的治疗”,而另一半则不同意。寻求临床伦理咨询的医生支持停止鼻饲(比值比,6.4;95%可信区间,2.5 - 16.3;P < 0.001)。
医生对撤除生命支持治疗的负面态度往往比对停止治疗的态度更强。另一方面,他们更倾向于停止侵入性维持生命的治疗,如使用呼吸机,而不是侵入性较小的长期治疗,如鼻饲。态度和实际行为之间存在差异。医生在临终护理的适当决策方面可能需要系统的支持。