Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Annas GJ (2005) Culture of life’ Politics at the bedside—The case of Terri Schiavo. New Engl J Med 352:1710–1715

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF et al (2005) Approaching difficult communication tasks in oncology. CA Cancer J Clin 55:164–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 Release

  4. Bayertz K (1999) Verantwortung. In: Sandkühler HJ (ed) Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Hamburg, pp 1683–1686

  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 176–194

    Google Scholar 

  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 77–80

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beaver K, Jones D, Susnerwala S et al (2005) Exploring the decision-making preferences of people with colorectal cancer. Health Expect 8:103–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):629–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buyx AM (2005) Eigenverantwortung-Verteilungskriterium im Gesundheitswesen? Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:1512–1515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cassell EJ (2005) The Schiavo Case: a medical perspective. Hastings Cent Rep 35:22–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):469–475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 13:589–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D et al (1997) Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 277:1485–1492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Etchells E, Sharpe G, Walsh P et al (1996) Bioethics for clinicians: 1. Consent. CMA 155:177–180

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaschke S (2005) Familienplanung. Das kinderlose Land. Hamburg. In: Zeitverlag (ed) Das Lexikon:690–694

  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 145–159

  17. Höfling W (2005) Integritätsschutz und Patientenautonomie am Lebensende. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130:898–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hofmann B, Håheim LL, Soreide JA (2005) Ethics of palliative surgery in patients with cancer. Br J Surg 92:802–809

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hope T, Savulescu J, Hendrick J (2003) Medical ethics and law. Churchill, Livingstone

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kelley M (2005) Limits on patient responsibility. J Med Philos 30:189–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 Krebstherapie

  22. Leighl N, Gattelari M, Butow P et al (2001) Discussing adjuvant cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 19(6):1768–1778

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mystakidou K, Parpa E, Tsilika E et al (2004) Cancer information disclosure in different cultural contexts. Support Care Cancer 12(3):147–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 130:261–265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Quill TE (2005) Terri Schiavo—A tragedy compounded. New Engl J Med 352:1630–1633

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 13:206–214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sandman L (2004) On the autonomy turf. Assessing the value of autonomy to patients. Med Health Care Philos 7:261–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Srirangam SJ, Pearson E, Grose C et al (2003) Partner’s influence on patient preference for treatment in early prostate cancer. BJU Int 92:365–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Schäfer C, Dietl B, Putnik K et al (2002) Patient information in radiooncology. Results of a patient survey. Strahlenther Onkol 178:562–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schäfer C, Herbst M (2003) Ethical aspects of patient information in radiation oncology. Strahlenther Onkol 179:431–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schäfer C, Stadler P, Dietl B (2003) Entscheidungshilfe bei Krebs in der Schwangerschaft. Eine Einführung in die kasuistische Bioethik. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 128:887–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 55:298–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tuinman MA, Fleer, Sleijfer DT et al (2005) Martial and sexual satisfaction in testicular cancer survivor and their spouses. Support Care Cancer 13:540–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. http://www.springerlink.com/media/2fal68xxvl6rrvpuupyn/contributions/u/l/g/8/ulg83740710g2502_html/fulltext.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universität Regensburg, Franz- Josef- Strauβ- Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

    Christof Schäfer, Kurt Putnik, Barbara Dietl & Oliver Kölbl

  2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin II, Schwerpunkt Psychosomatik, Universität Regensburg, Franz- Josef- Strauβ- Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

    Peter Leiberich & Thomas H. Loew

Authors
  1. Christof Schäfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kurt Putnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Dietl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Leiberich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas H. Loew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Oliver Kölbl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christof Schäfer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schäfer, C., Putnik, K., Dietl, B. et al. Medical decision-making of the patient in the context of the family: results of a survey. Support Care Cancer 14, 952–959 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-006-0025-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-006-0025-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation