Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 14, Issue 9, pp 952–959 | Cite as

Medical decision-making of the patient in the context of the family: results of a survey

  • Christof SchäferEmail author
  • Kurt Putnik
  • Barbara Dietl
  • Peter Leiberich
  • Thomas H. Loew
  • Oliver Kölbl
Original article


Goals of the study

From the perspective of patient autonomy, the family is often looked upon as a troublemaker in medical decision-making. The question remains open as to whether it is possible to do justice to the autonomy of the individual patient and to the claims of his family at the same time.

Patients and methods

A clinical study was undertaken when both patients and dependants were interviewed. One hundred people (50 pairs) participated in this study and could be analyzed. A questionnaire consisting of 15 items was used and was evaluated to see if and how the attitudes concerning medical decision-making differ between patient and dependant.


The majority of the interviewees (89%) agreed with the opinion that medical decisions should be made jointly by the patient, the family, and the doctor. Ninety-three percent approved of the claim to inform not only the patient, but also the family. Seventy percent of the patients and 54% of the dependants think that the family is entitled to have a say in matters concerning medical decision-making, only 30% of the patients, but 42% of the dependants argued against this view. Eighty-four percent of the patients argued against a change in this right at the end of life, which was approved by 32% of the family members.


The family plays a central role in medical decision-making. This could be shown by a survey among patients with malignant diseases and their dependants. These initial findings must be verified in a larger population. The increased inclusion of the family in the process of medical decision-making corresponds in general to the expressed will of the patients. The model of shared decision-making is favored by values which both the family and the patient have in common. Thus, a family-based decision-making theory needs to be formulated in the future.


Family Clinical ethics Radio-oncology Autonomy Medical decision-making Values End of life decisions 


  1. 1.
    Annas GJ (2005) Culture of life’ Politics at the bedside—The case of Terri Schiavo. New Engl J Med 352:1710–1715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF et al (2005) Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology. CA Cancer J Clin 55:164–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Back MF, Huak CY (2005) Family centered decision-making and non-disclosure of diagnosis in a South East Asian oncology practice. Psycho-Oncology: Online First ReleaseGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayertz K (1999) Verantwortung. In: Sandkühler HJ (ed) Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Hamburg, pp 1683–1686Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Paternalism: conflicts between beneficence and autonomy. In: Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (eds) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 176–194Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) The meaning and justification of informed consent. In: Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (eds) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 77–80Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beaver K, Jones D, Susnerwala S et al (2005) Exploring the decision-making preferences of people with colorectal cancer. Health Expect 8:103–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruns CM, Dixon T, Broom D et al (2003) Family caregiver knowledge of treatment intent in a longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer 11(10):629–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buyx AM (2005) Eigenverantwortung-Verteilungskriterium im Gesundheitswesen? Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:1512–1515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cassell EJ (2005) The Schiavo Case: a medical perspective. Hastings Cent Rep 35:22–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen M, Chu L, Chen H (2004) Impact of cancer patients’ quality of life on that of spouse caregivers. Support Care Cancer 12(7):469–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clayton J, Butow PN, Arnold RM, Tattersall MHN (2005) Discussing end-of-life issues with terminally ill cancer patients and their careers: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer 13:589–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D et al (1997) Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 277:1485–1492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Etchells E, Sharpe G, Walsh P et al (1996) Bioethics for clinicians: 1. Consent. CMA 155:177–180Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaschke S (2005) Familienplanung. Das kinderlose Land. Hamburg. In: Zeitverlag (ed) Das Lexikon:690–694Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hardwig J (2000) What about the family? Washington. In: Howell JH, Sale WF (eds) Life choices: a Hastings Center introduction to Bioethics, 2nd edn. pp 145–159Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Höfling W (2005) Integritätsschutz und Patientenautonomie am Lebensende. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:898–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hofmann B, Håheim LL, Soreide JA (2005) Ethics of palliative surgery in patients with cancer. Br J Surg 92:802–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hope T, Savulescu J, Hendrick J (2003) Medical ethics and law. Churchill, LivingstoneGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelley M (2005) Limits on patient responsibility. J Med Philos 30:189–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koller M, Schmitz G, Becker K et al (2004) Welche Art von Aufklärung brauchen Krebspatienten? Patientenaufklärung und das Erleben der Strahlentherapie. Basel. In: Bartsch HH, Weis J (eds) Gemeinsame Entscheidung in der KrebstherapieGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leighl N, Gattelari M, Butow P et al (2001) Discussing adjuvant cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 19(6):1768–1778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mystakidou K, Parpa E, Tsilika E et al (2004) Cancer information disclosure in different cultural contexts. Support Care Cancer 12(3):147–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Oorschot B, Lipp V, Tietze A et al (2005) Einstellungen zur Sterbehilfe und zu Patientenverfügungen. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von 727 Ärzten. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:261–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quill TE (2005) Terri Schiavo—A tragedy compounded. New Engl J Med 352:1630–1633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sahm S, Will R, Hommel G (2005) What are cancer patients’ preferences about treatment at the end of life, and who should start talking about it? A comparison with healthy people and medical staff. Support Care Cancer 13:206–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandman L (2004) On the autonomy turf. Assessing the value of autonomy to patients. Med Health Care Philos 7:261–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Srirangam SJ, Pearson E, Grose C et al (2003) Partner’s influence on patient preference for treatment in early prostate cancer. BJU Int 92:365–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schäfer C, Dietl B, Putnik K et al (2002) Patient information in radiooncology. Results of a patient survey. Strahlenther Onkol 178:562–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schäfer C, Herbst M (2003) Ethical aspects of patient information in radiation oncology. Strahlenther Onkol 179:431–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schäfer C, Stadler P, Dietl B (2003) Entscheidungshilfe bei Krebs in der Schwangerschaft. Eine Einführung in die kasuistische Bioethik. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 128:887–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schweitzer S, Oorschot B van, Köhler N et al (2005) Der Patient und seine Familie. Einstellungen und Mitsprachemöglichkeiten von Angehörigen palliativ behandelter Tumorpatienten. Psychother Psych Med 55:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tuinman MA, Fleer, Sleijfer DT et al (2005) Martial and sexual satisfaction in testicular cancer survivor and their spouses. Support Care Cancer 13:540–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Winterling J, Wasteson E, Sidenvall B et al (2005) Relevance of philosphy of life and optimism for psychological distress among individuals in a stage where death is approaching. Support Care Cancer. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christof Schäfer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kurt Putnik
    • 1
  • Barbara Dietl
    • 1
  • Peter Leiberich
    • 2
  • Thomas H. Loew
    • 2
  • Oliver Kölbl
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und RadioonkologieUniversität RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin II, Schwerpunkt PsychosomatikUniversität RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations