Premium
Age and life‐sustaining treatment Attitudes of intensive care unit professionals
Author(s) -
Melltorp G.,
Nilstun T.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
acta anaesthesiologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 107
eISSN - 1399-6576
pISSN - 0001-5172
DOI - 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1996.tb04558.x
Subject(s) - medicine , rationing , directive , intensive care unit , family medicine , health care , nursing , health care rationing , health professionals , intensive care , psychiatry , economic growth , intensive care medicine , computer science , economics , programming language
Background: In Sweden, the official policy is that life‐sustaining treatment should not be denied because of chronological age. This policy is also emphasised in a recent official report on priority setting in health care. But is this policy accepted among health care professionals? Do they consider chronological age relevant when decisions to forgo life‐sustaining treatment are to be made? Method: Questionnaire survey to physicians, registered nurses and enrolled nurses at the Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital MAS, Malmö, Sweden. Results: More than 65% of the respondents were of the opinion that chronological age per se influenced decisions about life‐sustaining treatment. Fewer, a little more than 40%, answered that it would make a difference to their own judgment about life‐sustaining treatment whether the patient is 25 or 75 years old. The respondents were also confronted with 10 different factors characterising patients in need of life‐sustaining treatment. According to a majority, advance directive, decision‐making capacity, and chronological age should be taken into consideration in these situations. Conclusion: The results indicate that chronological age is used as a criterion when decisions to forgo life‐sustaining treatment are to be made in the ICU. Many health care professionals also believe that chronological age should be used as a criterion. This is clearly discordant with the official policy in Sweden and other countries, which is that age‐based rationing is never justified.