Abstract
Importance
Patients’ are encouraged to participate in advance care planning (ACP) in order to enhance their autonomy. However, controversy exists as to what it means to be autonomous and there is limited understanding of how social and structural factors may influence cancer patients’ ability to exercise their autonomy.
Objective
The objective of this study is to explore oncologists’ and palliative care physicians’ understanding of patient autonomy, how this influences reported enactment of decision-making at the end of life (EOL), and the role of ACP in EOL care.
Design and setting
Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with consultant oncologists (n = 11) and palliative medicine doctors (n = 7) working in oncology centres and palliative care units across Australia.
Results
We found that doctors generally conceptualized autonomy in terms of freedom from interference but that there was a profound disconnect between this understanding of autonomy and clinical practice in EOL decision-making. The clinicians in our study privileged care, relationships and a ‘good death’ above patient autonomy, and in practice were reluctant to ‘abandon’ their patients to total non-interference in decision-making. Patient autonomy in healthcare is bounded, as while patients were generally encouraged to express their preferences for care, medical norms about the quality and ‘reasonableness’ of care, the availability of services and the patients’ family relationships act to enhance or limit patients’ capacity to realize their preferences. While for many, this disconnect between theory and practice did not diminish the rhetorical appeal of ACP; for others, this undermined the integrity of ACP, as well as its relevance to care. For some, ACP had little to do with patient autonomy and served numerous other ethical, practical and political functions.
Conclusion
The ethical assumptions regarding patient autonomy embedded in academic literature and policy documents relating to ACP are disconnected from the realities of clinical care. Medical norms and professional boundaries surrounding ‘good deaths’ have a greater influence on care than patient preference. ACP programs, therefore, may be rejected by healthcare professionals as irrelevant to care or may have the unintended consequence of limiting patient autonomy when used as a professional tool to encourage a ‘right’ way to die. A singular focus on bureaucratic ACP programs, which reduce patient autonomy to a ‘tick box’ exercise, may fail to enhance EOL care in any meaningful way.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bray F, Ren JS, Masuyer E, Ferlay J (2013) Global estimates of cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008. Int J Cancer 132(5):1133–1145
Fried TR, Stein MD, O’Sullivan PS, Brock DW, Novack DH (1993) Limits of patient autonomy: physician attitudes and practices regarding life-sustaining treatments and euthanasia. Arch Intern Med 153(6):722–728
Schildmann J, Ritter P, Salloch S, Uhl W, Vollmann J (2013) ‘One also needs a bit of trust in the doctor’: a qualitative interview study with pancreatic cancer patients about their perceptions and views on information and treatment decision-making. Ann Oncol 24(9):2444–2449
Barnato AE, Mohan D, Lane RK, Huang YM, Angus DC, Farris C et al (2014) Advance care planning norms may contribute to hospital variation in end-of-life ICU use: a simulation study. Med Decis Mak 34(4):473–484
Quill CM, Ratcliff SJ, Harhay MO, Halpern SD (2014) Variation in decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies in US ICUs. Chest 146(3):573–582
Street PA, Ottmann DG (2006) State of the science review of advance care planning models. La Trobe University, Bundoora
Dzeng E, Colaianni A, Roland M et al (2015) Influence of institutional culture and policies on do-not-resuscitate decision making at the end of life. JAMA Intern Med 175(5):812–819
Hilden HM, Honkasalo ML, Louhiala P (2006) Finnish doctors and the realisation of patient autonomy in the context of end of life decision making. J Med Ethics 32(6):316–320
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2013) Principles of biomedical ethics, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, New York
McNamara B, Waddell C, Colvin M (1994) The institutionalization of the good death. Soc Sci Med 39(11):1501–1508
Sahm S, Will R, Hommel G (2005) Would they follow what has been laid down? Cancer patients’ and healthy controls’ views on adherence to advance directives compared to medical staff. Med Health Care Philos 8(3):297–305
Winkler EC, Reiter-Theil S, Lange-Rieß D, Schmahl-Menges N, Hiddemann W (2009) Patient involvement in decisions to limit treatment: the crucial role of agreement between physician and patient. J Clin Oncol 27(13):2225–2230
Sherwin S (1998) Feminist Health Care Ethics Research N. A relational approach to autonomy in health care. The politics of women’s health: exploring agency and autonomy Philadelphia: Temple University Press. p. 19–47
Goldsteen M, Houtepen R, Proot IM, Abu-Saad HH, Spreeuwenberg C, Widdershoven G (2006) What is a good death? Terminally ill patients dealing with normative expectations around death and dying. Patient Educ Couns 64(1–3):378–386
Heath I (1999) Uncertain clarity: contradiction, meaning, and hope. Br J Gen Pract 49(445):651–657
McNamara B (2004) Good enough death: autonomy and choice in Australian palliative care. Soc Sci Med 58(5):929–938
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnson, S., Butow, P.N., Kerridge, I. et al. Patient autonomy and advance care planning: a qualitative study of oncologist and palliative care physicians’ perspectives. Support Care Cancer 26, 565–574 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3867-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3867-5