Article

Clinician-Patient Interactions About Requests for Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Patient and Family View

Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Archives of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 07/2002; 162(11):1257-65. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.162.11.1257
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Responding effectively to a patient request for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is an important clinical skill that involves careful evaluation. Clinician responses to PAS requests, however, have only been described using data obtained from clinicians.
To describe qualities of clinician-patient interactions about requests for PAS that were valued by patients and their family members.
Intensive qualitative case study involving multiple longitudinal interviews conducted prospectively with patients pursuing PAS and with their family members and retrospectively with family members of deceased patients who seriously pursued PAS. The study setting was community based. Participants were recruited through patient advocacy organizations, hospices, and grief counselors. A total of 35 cases were studied: 12 were prospective and 23 were retrospective. Study procedures involved semistructured interviews that were audiotaped, transcribed, reviewed, and analyzed by a multidisciplinary research team.
Three themes were identified that describe qualities of clinician-patient interactions that were valued by patients and family members: (1) openness to discussions about PAS; (2) clinician expertise in dealing with the dying process; and (3) maintenance of a therapeutic clinician-patient relationship, even when clinician and patient disagree about PAS.
These patient and family accounts reveal missed opportunities for clinicians to engage in therapeutic relationships, including discussions about PAS, dying, and end-of-life care. Clinicians responding to patients requesting PAS need communication skills enabling them to discuss PAS and dying openly, as well as expertise in setting reasonable expectations, individualizing pain control, and providing accurate information about the lethal potential of medications.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Anthony Back, Mar 03, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
87 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria. We identified published journal articles discussing criteria for rigorous research using standard search strategies then examined reference sections of relevant journal articles to identify books and book chapters on this topic. A cross-publication content analysis allowed us to identify criteria and understand the beliefs that shape them. Seven criteria for good qualitative research emerged: (1) carrying out ethical research; (2) importance of the research; (3) clarity and coherence of the research report; (4) use of appropriate and rigorous methods; (5) importance of reflexivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verification or reliability. General agreement was observed across publications on the first 4 quality dimensions. On the last 3, important divergent perspectives were observed in how these criteria should be applied to qualitative research, with differences based on the paradigm embraced by the authors. Qualitative research is not a unified field. Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts and are likely to embrace a generic set of criteria rather than those relevant to the particular qualitative approach proposed or reported. Reviewers and researchers need to be aware of this tendency and educate health care researchers about the criteria appropriate for evaluating qualitative research from within the theoretical and methodological framework from which it emerges.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 07/2008; 6(4):331-9. DOI:10.1370/afm.818 · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Palliative Medicine 03/2003; 17(2):113-114. DOI:10.1191/0269216303pm700op · 2.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Qualitative research has the potential to contribute important new knowledge to care near the end of life, but research is often hampered by questions about how best to protect dying patients and their family members who serve as research subjects. Due to lack of familiarity with the techniques of ethnographic or observational research, as well as concerns about the vulnerability of the dying, members of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are often unable to evaluate the benefits and potential harms of studies. In addition, policies derived from standards based on interventional medical research or clinical trials may be applied inappropriately. We offer comprehensive recommendations aimed at improving the translation of human subjects guidelines into meaningful protections for subjects in qualitative studies, including education for IRBs. Policies must be flexible and should be guided by empirical findings documenting the actual impact of research participation, rather than a priori assumptions about patient vulnerability. Sensitive topics, such as drug use, may require added protections.
    Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 05/2003; 25(4):S43-52. DOI:10.1016/S0885-3924(03)00060-5 · 2.74 Impact Factor