Clarke Gemma, Fistein Elizabeth, Holland Anthony, Barclay Matthew, Theimann Pia, Barclay Stephen
Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Cambridge Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Douglas House, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 5;12(4):e0172104. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172104. eCollection 2017.
There is continuing public debate about treatment preferences at the end of life, and the acceptability and legal status of treatments that sustain or end life. However, most surveys use binary yes/no measures, and little is known about preferences in neurological disease when decision-making capacity is lost, as most studies focus on cancer. This study investigates changes in public preferences for care towards the end of life, with a focus on measures to sustain or end life.
Large-scale international public opinion surveys using a six-stage patient vignette, respondents chose a level of intervention for each stage as health and decision-making capacity deteriorated. Cross-sectional representative samples of the general public in Great Britain and the USA (N = 2016). Primary outcome measure: changes in respondents' preferences for care, measured on a four-point scale designed before data collection. The scale ranged from: maintaining life at all costs; to intervention with agreement; to no intervention; to measures for ending life.
There were no significant differences between GB and USA. Preference for measures to sustain life at all costs peaked at short-term memory loss (30.2%, n = 610). Respondents selecting 'measures to help me die peacefully' increased from 3.9% to 37.0% as the condition deteriorated, with the largest increase occurring when decision-making capacity was lost (10.3% to 23.0%). Predictors of choosing 'measures to help me die peacefully' at any stage were: previous personal experience (OR = 1.34, p<0.010), and older age (OR = 1.09 per decade, p<0.010). Negative predictors: living with children (OR = 0.72, p<0.010) and being of "black" race/ethnicity (OR = 0.45, p<0.001).
Public opinion was uniform between GB and USA, but markedly heterogeneous. Despite contemporaneous capacitous consent providing an essential legal safeguard in most jurisdictions, there was a high prevalence of preference for "measures to end my life peacefully" when decision-making capacity was compromised, which increased as dementia progressed. In contrast, a significant number chose preservation of life at all costs, even in end stage dementia. It is challenging to respect the longstanding values of people with dementia concerning either the inviolability of life or personal autonomy, whilst protecting those without decision-making capacity.
关于临终治疗偏好以及维持或结束生命的治疗方法的可接受性和法律地位,公众辩论仍在持续。然而,大多数调查采用二元的是/否衡量方式,并且对于神经疾病患者丧失决策能力时的偏好了解甚少,因为大多数研究聚焦于癌症。本研究调查公众对临终关怀偏好的变化,重点关注维持或结束生命的措施。
采用六阶段患者病例的大规模国际民意调查,随着健康状况和决策能力恶化,受访者为每个阶段选择干预水平。英国和美国普通公众的横断面代表性样本(N = 2016)。主要结局指标:受访者对护理偏好的变化,采用在数据收集前设计的四点量表进行测量。该量表范围从:不惜一切代价维持生命;到经同意进行干预;到不进行干预;到结束生命的措施。
英国和美国之间无显著差异。不惜一切代价维持生命的措施的偏好率在短期记忆丧失时达到峰值(30.2%,n = 610)。随着病情恶化,选择“帮助我平静离世的措施”的受访者从3.9%增至37.0%,最大增幅发生在决策能力丧失时(从10.3%增至23.0%)。在任何阶段选择“帮助我平静离世的措施”的预测因素为:既往个人经历(OR = 1.34,p<0.010)和年龄较大(每十年OR = 1.09,p<0.010)。负向预测因素:与子女同住(OR = 0.72,p<0.010)以及属于“黑人”种族/族裔(OR = 0.45,p<0.001)。
英国和美国的公众意见一致,但存在显著异质性。尽管在大多数司法管辖区,同期的有效同意提供了重要法律保障,但当决策能力受损时,对“帮助我平静离世的措施”的偏好率很高,且随着痴呆进展而增加。相比之下,相当一部分人即使在痴呆晚期也选择不惜一切代价维持生命。在尊重痴呆患者关于生命不可侵犯或个人自主的长期价值观的同时,保护那些无决策能力的人具有挑战性。