Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35751123›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications.

Liam Strand, Lars Sandman, Gustav Tinghög, Ann-Charlotte Nedlund

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Liam StrandSwedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sandbäcksgatan 7, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden. liam.strand@liu.se.
Lars SandmanSwedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sandbäcksgatan 7, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Gustav TinghögSwedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sandbäcksgatan 7, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.
Ann-Charlotte NedlundSwedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Sandbäcksgatan 7, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen rationing health care, a commonly held view among ethicists is that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing or withholding medical treatments. In reality, this view does not generally seem to be supported by practicians nor in legislation practices, by for example adding a 'grandfather clause' when rejecting a new treatment for lacking cost-effectiveness. Due to this discrepancy, our objective was to explore physicians' and patient organization representatives' experiences- and perceptions of withdrawing and withholding treatments in rationing situations of relative scarcity.

methodsFourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Sweden with physicians and patient organization representatives, thematic analysis was used.

resultsParticipants commonly express internally inconsistent views regarding if withdrawing or withholding medical treatments should be deemed as ethically equivalent. Participants express that in terms of patients' need for treatment (e.g., the treatment's effectiveness and the patient's medical condition) withholding and withdrawing should be deemed ethically equivalent. However, in terms of prognostic differences, and the patient-physician relation and communication, there is a clear discrepancy which carry a moral significance and ultimately makes withdrawing psychologically difficult for both physicians and patients, and politically difficult for policy makers.

conclusionsWe conclude that the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment as unified concepts is a simplification of a more complex situation, where different factors related differently to these two concepts. Following this, possible policy solutions are discussed for how to resolve this experienced moral difference by practitioners and ease withdrawing treatments due to health care rationing. Such solutions could be to have agreements between the physician and patient about potential future treatment withdrawals, to evaluate the treatment's effect, and to provide guidelines on a national level.

Indexed as

Health Care RationingPhysiciansHumansMoralsQualitative ResearchWithholding TreatmentDisinvestmentEquivalence thesisPriority settingQualitative researchReimbursementSweden

Identifiers

PMID35751123
PMCPMC9233323

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.