Search

Objective Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Method Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Results Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52–76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34–58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others ( P < 0.0001), advance directives ( P = 0.01), age ( P = 0.008) and the SAPS 2 score ( P = 0.009). Conclusion The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of oncology patients, especially hospitalized patients, can lead to almost daily discussions regarding therapeutic limitations. Here, we review the history and propose a summary of the texts framing the notion of "withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment" in oncology practice in France. This decision is regulated by the Claeys-Léonetti Law of February 2, 2016 recommending a collegial discussion and its documentation in the medical record. The decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments is the subject of discussion between the patient, his physicians and his family and may take place at any time during his management. The work of intensive-care physicians provides many useful recommendations for acute oncology situations, however articles specific for oncology practice are scarce; this is a topic that oncologists must take up., (Copyright © 2021 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Advanced care decision in emergency medicine is difficult for the elderly. How to be fair, avoiding an unreasonable obstinacy? Based on the case of very old person, we show how an optimal management can be decided in accordance with the spirit of the law., (Copyright © 2014 Société française d’anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

For the last 20 years or so, conflicts on life-support have become the object of widespread media coverage. By focusing public opinion on the alleged physicians' unreasonable obstinacy, these publicized cases impact social debates on life-support. By these, they justify claims for the legalization of assisted suicide, specifically the practice of termination of life by lethal injection. Via a conducted survey of the various caretakers and families involved in this type of situation, we propose an analysis based on the different forms of unreasonable obstinacy. The reasonable or unreasonable nature of treatments can often be perceived differently by physicians, caretakers and families. At least 6 unreasonable obstinacy cases can be brought to light. Publicized cases always involve a conflict between the physicians in charge and the families who view the situation as unreasonable. Nonetheless, evidence shows that in these situations, the roles are often reversed, and the families are the ones demanding the use of unreasonable care. A typical example of this is a recent case that became the object of legal proceedings in France. As it turns out, the publicized filter does not reflect the true reality of cases involving unreasonable care. Specific procedures could aid in notifying the existence of such situations. The role of health care professionals (excluding physicians) appears to play an essential part in preventing these situations from happening., (Copyright © 2013 Société française d’anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)