Comparing Ethical Reasoning of Doctors and the Public on Life-Sustaining Treatment
Author Information
Author(s): Anders Rydvall, Niels Lynöe
Primary Institution: Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Anaesthesiology, University Hospital of Northern Sweden
Hypothesis
Is there a consensus between the general public and health care providers regarding the reasoning and values at stake on the subject of life-sustaining treatment?
Conclusion
There are considerable differences in how physicians and the general public assess and reason in critical care situations, but their assessments tend to converge for hopelessly ill patients.
Supporting Evidence
- Approximately 70% of physicians and 51% of the general public responded to the questionnaire.
- 82.3% of doctors stated they would withhold treatment, while only 40.2% of the public would.
- 94.1% of physicians and 77.7% of the public were prepared to withdraw treatment.
Takeaway
Doctors and the public often think differently about whether to keep a very sick person alive, but they start to agree more when the situation is really bad.
Methodology
A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of the adult population and intensive care doctors in Sweden.
Potential Biases
Differences in responses may arise from genuine differences in values rather than bias.
Limitations
The study used a vignette which may not reflect real-life decision making, and the response rate among the general public was low.
Participant Demographics
The study included 410 intensive care doctors and 989 members of the general public, with a significant difference in sex distribution.
Statistical Information
P-Value
P << 0.001
Confidence Interval
95% CI
Statistical Significance
p << 0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website