Sullivan Jane, Gillam Lynn, Monagle Paul
The Children's Bioethics Centre, The Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Australia The Centre for Health & Society, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Critical Care and Neurosciences Theme, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2015 Sep;5(3):240-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2013-000558. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
Whether parents want to be and should be the decision-maker for their child in end-of-life matters are contested clinical and ethical questions. Previous research outcomes are equivocal.
A qualitative interview method was used to examine the views and experiences of 25 bereaved parents in end-of-life decision-making for their child. Data were analysed thematically.
Three types of decision-making roles were identified: self-determined, guided (both involving active decision-making) and acquiescent (passive).The majority of parents had been active in the decision-making process for their child. They perceived themselves as the ultimate end-of-life decision-maker. This was perceived as part of their parental responsibility. A minority of parents did not consider that they had been an active, ultimate decision-maker. Generally, parents in the self-determined and guided groups reported no negative consequences from their decision-making involvement. Importantly, parents in the acquiescent group described their experience as difficult at the time and subsequently, although not all difficulties related directly to decision-making. Parents considered that in principle parents should be the end-of-life decision-maker for their child, but understood personal characteristics and preference could prevent some parents from taking this role.
This study unequivocally supports parents' desire to fulfil the end-of-life decision-making role. It provides a nuanced understanding of parents' roles and contributes evidence for the ethical position that parents should be the end-of-life decision-makers for their child, unless not in the child's best interests. On the whole, parents want this role and can manage its consequences. Indeed, not being the end-of-life decision-maker could be detrimental to parents' well-being.
在临终事宜中,父母是否想要且应该成为孩子的决策者,这是存在争议的临床和伦理问题。以往的研究结果并不明确。
采用定性访谈方法,研究25位失去孩子的父母在孩子临终决策方面的观点和经历。对数据进行主题分析。
确定了三种决策角色类型:自主决定型、受引导型(两者都涉及积极决策)和默认型(被动型)。大多数父母在孩子的决策过程中较为积极。他们将自己视为最终的临终决策者。这被视为他们父母责任的一部分。少数父母不认为自己是积极的最终决策者。一般来说,自主决定型和受引导型组的父母表示,参与决策没有带来负面后果。重要的是,默认型组的父母描述他们当时及之后的经历很艰难,尽管并非所有困难都直接与决策相关。父母们认为,原则上父母应该是孩子临终时的决策者,但也明白个人特征和偏好可能会使一些父母无法承担这一角色。
本研究明确支持父母想要履行临终决策角色的愿望。它对父母的角色提供了细致入微的理解,并为父母应成为孩子临终决策者这一伦理立场提供了证据,除非这不符合孩子的最大利益。总体而言,父母想要这个角色并能应对其后果。事实上,不成为临终决策者可能对父母的幸福感有害。