Swedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sandbäcksgatan 7, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Jun 24;23(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00805-9.
When rationing health care, a commonly held view among ethicists is that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing or withholding medical treatments. In reality, this view does not generally seem to be supported by practicians nor in legislation practices, by for example adding a 'grandfather clause' when rejecting a new treatment for lacking cost-effectiveness. Due to this discrepancy, our objective was to explore physicians' and patient organization representatives' experiences- and perceptions of withdrawing and withholding treatments in rationing situations of relative scarcity.
Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Sweden with physicians and patient organization representatives, thematic analysis was used.
Participants commonly express internally inconsistent views regarding if withdrawing or withholding medical treatments should be deemed as ethically equivalent. Participants express that in terms of patients' need for treatment (e.g., the treatment's effectiveness and the patient's medical condition) withholding and withdrawing should be deemed ethically equivalent. However, in terms of prognostic differences, and the patient-physician relation and communication, there is a clear discrepancy which carry a moral significance and ultimately makes withdrawing psychologically difficult for both physicians and patients, and politically difficult for policy makers.
We conclude that the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment as unified concepts is a simplification of a more complex situation, where different factors related differently to these two concepts. Following this, possible policy solutions are discussed for how to resolve this experienced moral difference by practitioners and ease withdrawing treatments due to health care rationing. Such solutions could be to have agreements between the physician and patient about potential future treatment withdrawals, to evaluate the treatment's effect, and to provide guidelines on a national level.
当医疗资源有限时,伦理学家普遍认为,撤回和停止治疗之间没有道德区别。实际上,这种观点似乎并没有得到实践人员的普遍支持,也没有体现在立法实践中,例如在拒绝缺乏成本效益的新治疗方法时增加“祖父条款”。由于这种差异,我们的目的是探讨医生和患者组织代表在相对稀缺的资源分配情况下,在撤回和停止治疗方面的经验和看法。
在瑞典对医生和患者组织代表进行了 14 次半结构化访谈,使用主题分析方法。
参与者普遍对撤回和停止治疗是否应被视为具有同等道德意义持有内在不一致的观点。参与者表示,就患者对治疗的需求而言(例如,治疗的有效性和患者的健康状况),撤回和停止治疗应被视为具有同等道德意义。然而,在预后差异以及医患关系和沟通方面,存在着明显的差异,这具有道德意义,最终使医生和患者在心理上难以接受撤回治疗,也使政策制定者在政治上难以接受。
我们的结论是,将撤回和停止治疗视为统一概念的做法过于简单化,实际上是一种更为复杂的情况,其中不同的因素与这两个概念相关程度不同。在此基础上,我们讨论了可能的政策解决方案,以便实践人员解决这种经验性的道德差异,并在因医疗资源有限而需要撤回治疗时减轻这种困难。例如,医生和患者之间可能就未来潜在的治疗撤回达成协议,评估治疗效果,并在国家层面提供指导方针。