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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …