Skip to main content

Do patients need to know they are terminally ill?

Do patients have a right to know whether they are terminally ill? Or should this be a matter at the discretion of their doctor?

In this week’s BMJ, experts debate whether patients need to know they are terminally ill.

Emily Collis and colleagues at the Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust say that decision making can only be ethically sound with a fully informed patient, saying “accurate information enables patients to make informed, realistic choices and helps achieve patient preferences of care.”

They point to General Medical Council guidance stating that information should only be withheld from terminally ill patients if it is thought that giving information will cause serious harm, specified as “more than becoming upset.” And if information is withheld, the reasons must be justified, documented, and reconsidered at a later date.

Therefore, the key consideration for doctors is not whether patients are informed that their disease is incurable, but how this information is communicated, they argue.

They believe patients “should be given the information they want or need in a way they can understand” and “ideally these conversations would occur throughout the course of the patient’s illness, enabling him or her to come to terms with the situation in their own time.”

They acknowledge that estimating prognosis “can never be completely accurate” but say this “should not obscure the clarity that the illness is incurable.” They add that no one can make decisions on behalf of patients who have capacity, and that unless a patient refuses information, withholding information at the request of a relative is not ethically justifiable.

“Breaking bad news is challenging in any context, but the consequences of neglecting this duty may directly affect the trust between doctor and patient, the patient’s autonomy, and ultimately his or her quality of life,” they conclude.

But Leslie Blackhall from the University of Virginia believes that insisting on prognostic disclosure to facilitate “patient choice” regarding end of life care “is a failed paradigm for medical decision making that creates more suffering than it relieves.”

She thinks the concept of “terminal illness” is not clearly defined and that prognoses can never be certain. For instance, she asks, does telling someone that they are terminally ill mean telling them how long they have to live (hard to know for any individual)? Does it mean telling them that they will eventually die (true for all of us)? Does it mean telling them there is “nothing we can do” (never true)?

This lack of precision … “indicates an underlying failure of the medical profession and wider culture at large to consider how the fact of human mortality should be accounted for in the practice of medicine.”

The real question, she says, is not whether patients should be told that they are “terminally ill” but how can we provide excellent care to patients with incurable, progressive illnesses?

Blackhall believes that to make decisions about care, patients with life limiting illnesses do not necessarily need to know how long they have to live or be informed when they pass some ill defined threshold of “terminal illness,” or choose to accept death. Instead, she says, they need “to understand the limitations of disease modifying therapy for their condition; what medical care can do for this disease; what side effects treatments might have; and what may happen as the illness progresses - or to delegate that task to a trusted surrogate.”

“This is not an argument for deceiving patients, or for reverting to a paternalistic mode of care. On the contrary, it is an argument for honesty about the efficacy of various types of medical care throughout the spectrum of life limiting illness,” she concludes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As