Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 1128–1132 | Cite as

The luck of the draw: physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making in intensive care

Legal and Ethical Issues



To critically analyze physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making in intensive care.


An ethical analysis of factors contributing to physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making.


There is variability in decision-making about life support, both within and between intensive care units. Physician age, race, religion, attitude to risk, and personality factors have been associated with decisions to provide or limit life-sustaining treatment, though it is unclear how much these factors affect patient outcome. Inconsistency in decision-making appears worryingly arbitrary, and may mean that patients’ values are sometimes being ignored or overridden. However, physician influence on decisions may also sometimes be appropriate and unavoidable, particularly where patient values are unclear.


We argue that, although physician-related variability in end-of-life care can never be eliminated entirely, it is potentially ethically problematic. We outline four potential strategies for reducing the “roster lottery.”


Terminal care/ethics Withholding treatment Intensive care Decision-making Clinical ethics 

Supplementary material

134_2013_2871_MOESM1_ESM.docx (114 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 113 kb)
134_2013_2871_MOESM2_ESM.docx (57 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 56 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wennberg JE (2011) Time to tackle unwarranted variations in practice. BMJ 342:687–690. doi:10.1136/bmj.d1513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frost D, Cook D, Heyland D, Fowler R (2011) Patient and healthcare professional factors influencing end-of-life decision-making during critical illness: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 39:1174–1189. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820eacf2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azoulay E, Metnitz B, Sprung CL, Timsit JF, Lemaire F, Bauer P, Schlemmer B, Moreno R, Metnitz P (2009) End-of-life practices in 282 intensive care units: data from the SAPS 3 database. Intensive Care Med 35:623–630. doi:10.1007/s00134-008-1310-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, Baras M, Bulow HH, Hovilehto S, Ledoux D, Lippert A, Maia P, Phelan D, Schobersberger W, Wennberg E, Woodcock T (2003) End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: the Ethicus study. JAMA 290:790–797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lofmark R, Nilstun T, Cartwright C, Fischer S, van der Heide A, Mortier F, Norup M, Simonato L, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, EURELD Consortium (2008) Physicians’ experiences with end-of-life decision-making: survey in 6 European countries and Australia. BMC Med 6:4. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-6-4
  6. 6.
    de Leeuw R, Cuttini M, Nadai M, Berbik I, Hansen G, Kucinskas A, Lenoir S, Levin A, Persson J, Rebagliato M, Reid M, Schroell M, de Vonderweid U, EURONIC study group (2000) Treatment choices for extremely preterm infants: an international perspective. J Pediatr 137:608–616Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Randolph AG, Zollo MB, Egger MJ, Guyatt GH, Nelson RM, Stidham GL (1999) Variability in physician opinion on limiting pediatric life support. Pediatrics 103:e46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Needle JS, Mularski RA, Nguyen T, Fromme EK (2012) Influence of personal preferences for life-sustaining treatment on medical decision making among pediatric intensivists. Crit Care Med 40:2464–2469. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318255d85b PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnato AE, Hsu HE, Bryce CL, Lave JR, Emlet LL, Angus DC, Arnold RM (2008) Using simulation to isolate physician variation in intensive care unit admission decision making for critically ill elders with end-stage cancer: a pilot feasibility study. Crit Care Med 36:3156–3163. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31818f40d2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gresiuk CS, Joffe AR (2011) Variability in the pediatric intensivists’ threshold for withdrawal/limitation of life support as perceived by bedside nurses: a multicenter survey study. Ann Intensive Care 1:31. doi:10.1186/2110-5820-1-31 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larochelle MR, Rodriguez KL, Arnold RM, Barnato AE (2009) Hospital staff attributions of the causes of physician variation in end-of-life treatment intensity. Palliat Med 23:460–470. doi:10.1177/0269216309103664 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poulton B, Ridley S, Mackenzie-Ross R, Rizvi S (2005) Variation in end-of-life decision making between critical care consultants. Anaesthesia 60:1101–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garland A, Connors AF (2007) Physicians’ influence over decisions to forego life support. J Palliat Med 10:1298–1305. doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0061 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sprung CL, Maia P, Bulow HH, Ricou B, Armaganidis A, Baras M, Wennberg E, Reinhart K, Cohen SL, Fries DR, Nakos G, Thijs LG (2007) The importance of religious affiliation and culture on end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 33:1732–1739. doi:10.1007/s00134-007-0693-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Catlin AJ (2010) Variability in the limitation of life support in pediatrics continues. J Clin Ethics 20:327–329Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garland A, Shaman Z, Baron J, Connors AF Jr (2006) Physician-attributable differences in intensive care unit costs: a single-center study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 174:1206–1210. doi:10.1164/rccm.200511-1810OC PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    White DB, Brody B (2011) Would accommodating some conscientious objections by physicians promote quality in medical care? JAMA 305:1804–1805. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.575 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lantos JD, Meadow W (2009) Variation in the treatment of infants born at the borderline of viability. Pediatrics 123:1588–1590. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0030 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schenker Y, Tiver GA, Hong SY, White DB (2012) Association between physicians’ beliefs and the option of comfort care for critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 38:1607–1615. doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2671-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Epstein RM, Peters E (2009) Beyond information: exploring patients’ preferences. JAMA 302:195–197. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.984 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brush DR, Rasinski KA, Hall JB, Alexander GC (2012) Recommendations to limit life support: a national survey of critical care physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 186:633–639. doi:10.1164/rccm.201202-0354OC PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kon AA (2010) The shared decision-making continuum. JAMA 304:903–904. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1208 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Downey L, Au DH, Curtis JR, Engelberg RA (2012) Life-sustaining treatment preferences: matches and mismatches between patients’ preferences and clinicians’ perceptions. J Pain Symp Manag. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.07.002 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Madrigal VN, Carroll KW, Hexem KR, Faerber JA, Morrison WE, Feudtner C (2012) Parental decision-making preferences in the pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 40:2876–2882. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31825b9151 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Degner LF, Sloan JA (1992) Decision making during serious illness: what role do patients really want to play? J Clin Epidemiol 45:941–950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Discipline of Obstetrics and GynecologyWomen’s and Children’s Hospital, University of AdelaideNorth AdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics The University of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Children’s Hospital BostonHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Division of Medical Ethics, Department of Global Health and Social MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations