Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 126–132 | Cite as

Continuing, Withdrawing, and Withholding Medical Treatment at the End of Life and Associated Characteristics: a Mortality Follow-back Study

  • Yolanda W. H. Penders
  • Matthias BoppEmail author
  • Ueli Zellweger
  • Georg Bosshard
  • for the Swiss Medical End-of-Life Decisions Study Group
Original Research



Studies on forgoing treatment often ignore treatments that are continued until death.


To investigate how often specific treatments are withdrawn or withheld before death and to describe the associated patient, physician, and care characteristics.


National mortality follow-back study in Switzerland in 2013/2014 using a standardized survey to collect information on the patient’s end of life and demographics on the physician.


A random sample of adults who died non-suddenly without an external cause and who had met the physician completing the survey (N = 3051).

Main Measures

Any of nine specific treatments was continued until death, withdrawn, or withheld.

Key Results

In 2242 cases (84%), at least one treatment was either continued until death or withheld or withdrawn. The most common treatment was artificial hydration, which was continued in 23%, withdrawn in 4%, and withheld in 22% of all cases. The other eight treatments were withdrawn or withheld in 70–94% of applicable cases. The impact of physician characteristics was limited, but artificial hydration, antibiotics, artificial nutrition, and ventilator therapy were more likely to be withheld at home and in nursing homes than in the hospitals.


Large differences exist between care settings in whether treatments are continued, withdrawn, or withheld, indicating the different availability of treatment options or different philosophies of care. While certain patient groups are more likely to have treatment withheld rather than attempted, neither patient nor physician characteristics impact the decision to continue or withdraw treatment.


palliative care end-of-life decisions withholding treatment medical decision-making 



We thank the Swiss Federal Statistical Office for having sampled deaths for our study and the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS) for ensuring the anonymity of the questionnaires. We are indebted to the many physicians who participated in the study and filled in the questionnaires.

Further members of the Swiss Medical End-of-Life Decisions Study Group are as follows: Karin Faisst (St. Gallen), Felix Gutzwiller (Zurich), Samia Hurst (Geneva), Christoph Junker (Neuchâtel), Milo Alan Puhan (Zurich), Margareta Schmid (Zurich), and Sarah Ziegler (Zurich).

Funding Information

This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 406740-139309, National Research Program 67 ‘End-of-Life’) and the Palliative Care Research funding program of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences; the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation; and the Stanley Thomas Johnson Foundation (grant PC 03/16).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Consent from the patient was waived by the Zurich Cantonal Ethics Committee (KEK-StV No. 23/13).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Cheung MC, Earle CC, Rangrej J, et al. Impact of aggressive management and palliative care on cancer costs in the final month of life. Cancer. 2015;121(18):3307–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wright AA, Keating NL, Ayanian JZ, et al. Family perspectives on aggressive cancer care near the end of life. Jama. 2016;315(3):284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giannini A, Pessina A, Tacchi EM. End-of-life decisions in intensive care units: attitudes of physicians in an Italian urban setting. Intensive Care Medicine. 2003;29(11):1902–1910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Groenewoud JH, van der Heide A, Kester JGC, de Graaff CLM, van der Wal G, van der Maas P. A nationwide study of decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment in Dutch medical practice. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(3):357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welie JVM, ten Have HAMJ. The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine. 2014;9:14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pereira SM, Pasman HR, van der Heide A, van Delden JJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. Old age and forgoing treatment: a nationwide mortality follow-back study in the Netherlands. Journal of medical ethics. 2015;41:766–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Wijmen MP, Pasman HR, Widdershoven GA, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD. Continuing or forgoing treatment at the end of life? Preferences of the general public and people with an advance directive. Journal of medical ethics. 2015;41:599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chambaere K, Cohen J, Robijn L, Bailey SK, Deliens L. End-of-Life Decisions in Individuals Dying with Dementia in Belgium. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2015;63(2):290–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bosshard G, Nilstun T, Bilsen J, et al. Forgoing treatment at the end of life in 6 European countries. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(4):401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schmid M, Zellweger U, Bosshard G, Bopp M. Medical end-of-life decisions in Switzerland 2001 and 2013: Who is involved and how does the decision-making capacity of the patient impact. Swiss Med Wkly. 2016;146:w14307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bosshard G, Zellweger U, Bopp M, Schmid M, Hurst SA, Puhan MA, Faisst K. Medical end-of-life practices in Switzerland: A comparison of 2001 and 2013. JAMA internal medicine. 2016;176(4):555–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melltorp G, Nilstun T. The difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23(12):1264–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rydvall A, Lynöe N. Witholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a comparative study of the ethical reasoning of physicians and the general public. Critical Care. 2008;12:R13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMS). Management of dying and death. 2018. Available from:
  15. 15.
    Thomson S, Osborn R, Squires D, Reed SJ. International profiles of health care systems 2011: Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Commonwealth Fund pub. 1857Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miccinesi G, Fischer S, Paci E, et al. Physicians’ attitudes towards end-of-life decisions: a comparison between seven countries. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:1961–1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Fischer S, Cartwright C, et al. End-of-life decision making in Europe and Australia. A physician survey. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:921–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Escher M, Perneger TV, Rudaz S, Dayer P, Perrier A. Impact of advance directives and a health care proxy on doctors’ decisions: a randomized trial. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2014 Jan 1;47(1):1–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silveira MJ, Wiitala W, Piette J. Advance directive completion by elderly Americans: a decade of change. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2014 Apr;62(4):706–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ziegler S, Schmid M, Bopp M, Bosshard G, Puhan MA. Using sedative substances until death: A mortality follow-back study on the role of healthcare settings. Pall Med 2019;33(2):213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    West E, Costantini M, Pasman HR, Onwuteaka-Philipsen B. A comparison of drugs and procedures of care in the Italian hospice and hospital settings: the final three days of life for cancer patients. BMC health services research. 2014;14(1):496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stroka, Magdalena A. Drug overprescription in nursing homes: an empirical evaluation of administrative data. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2016;17(3): 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Earle CC, Landrum MB, Souza JM, Neville BA, Weeks JC, Ayanian JZ. Aggressiveness of cancer care near the end of life: is it a quality-of-care issue? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2008 Aug 10;26(23):3860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prigerson HG, Bao Y, Shah MA, Paulk ME, LeBlanc TW, Schneider BJ, Garrido MM, Reid MC, Berlin DA, Adelson KB, Neugut AI. Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA oncology. 2015 Sep 1;1(6):778–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Druml C, Ballmer PE, Druml W, et al. ESPEN guideline on ethical aspects of artificial nutrition and hydration. Clinical Nutrition. 2016;35(3):545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bükki J, Unterpaul T, Nübling G, Jox RJ, Lorenzl S. Decision making at the end of life—cancer patients’ and their caregivers’ views on artificial nutrition and hydration. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2014;22(12):3287–3299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morita Y, Shima Y, Adachi I. Attitiudes of Japanese physicians toward terminal dehydration: A nationwide survey. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2002;20(24):4699–4704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Rietjens JA, van der Heide A. The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: a systematic review. Palliative medicine. 2014;28(8):1000–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    De Vleminck A, Pardon K, Beernaert K, Deschepper R, Houttekier D, Van Audenhove C, Deliens L, Vander Stichele R. Barriers to advance care planning in cancer, heart failure and dementia patients: a focus group study on general practitioners' views and experiences. PloS one. 2014;9(1):e84905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rietjens JA, Deschepper R, Pasman R, Deliens L. Medical end-of-life decisions: does its use differ in vulnerable patient groups? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(8):1282–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. Jama. 2013 Aug 28;310(8):797–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yolanda W. H. Penders
    • 1
  • Matthias Bopp
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ueli Zellweger
    • 1
  • Georg Bosshard
    • 2
  • for the Swiss Medical End-of-Life Decisions Study Group
  1. 1.Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Clinic for Geriatric Medicine, Zurich University Hospital, and Center on Aging and MobilityUniversity of Zurich and City Hospital WaidZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations