End-of-life care

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Objective: The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) surveyed the attitudes, behavior, and knowledge of its members regarding care at the end of life. Three groups of AAN members were surveyed: neuro-oncologists, ALS specialists, and a representative sample of US neurologists. Methods: The survey presented two clinical scenarios involving end-of-life care. Neurologists were asked a series of questions to assess their knowledge of existing medical, ethical, and legal guidelines; their willingness to participate in physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or carry out voluntary euthanasia (VE); and their general attitudes regarding end-of-life care. Results: Neurologists support a patient’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, but many believe that they are killing their patients in supporting such refusals. Thirty-seven percent think it is illegal to administer analgesics in doses that risk respiratory depression to the point of death. Forty percent believe they should obtain legal counsel when considering stopping life-sustaining treatment. One half believe that PAS should be made explicitly legal by statute for terminally ill patients. Under current law, 13% would participate in PAS and 4% would carry out VE; if those procedures were legalized, 44% would participate in PAS and 28% in VE. Approximately one third believe that physicians have the same ethical duty to honor a terminally ill patient’s request for PAS as they do to honor a such a patient’s refusal of life-sustaining therapy. Conclusions: There is a gap between established medical, legal, and ethical guidelines for the care of dying patients and the beliefs and practices of many neurologists, suggesting a need for graduate and postgraduate education programs in the principles and practices of palliative care medicine. Many neurologists would participate in PAS and carry out VE if legalized.