Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:26:03.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supporting Life through Tube Feeding: Factors Influencing Surrogate Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

Donna Wilson
Donna Wilson
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many individuals have tube feeding implemented in the end stages of life. It is also common to have surrogates making life support decisions for others. When family members are placed in the role of decision-maker for an incompetent patient, what factors influence life support decisions? A case study and ethnomethodological inquiry provide an in-depth understanding of factors that influenced one daughter in her decision to have tube feeding implemented for her incompetent and severely debilitated mother. The decision was difficult and constituted a time of crisis. Unfortunately, the most influential factors in decision-making were: (a) urgency in the face of impending death, (b) lack of insight into the mother's values and preferences in relation to life support through tube feeding, (c) lack of knowledge over what tube feeding involved, and (d) the belief that tube feeding would not prolong her mother's life and suffering. Nine other, less influential, factors were also found. Improving the sensitivity of health care professionals to the agony of decision-making and to the decision-making process for life support are the major focuses of this paper.

Résumé

Un grand nombre de personnes ont besoin d'une sonde au cours de la dernière étape de leur vie. Par ailleurs, la décision du maintien des fonctions vitales revient souvent à une autre partie. Lorsque les membres d'une famille sont tenus de prendre cette décision pour un patient incompétent, quels facteurs influenceront leur choix? Une étude de cas et un sondage ethnométhodologique ont révélé clairement et en détail les facteurs ayant influencé une femme devant décider si les fonctions vitales de sa mére en état d'incapacité totale et de grave débilité devaient être maintenues au moyen d'une sonde pour gavage. La décision était difficile à prendre et survenait à un moment critique. Malheureusement, les facteurs ayant eu la plus forte influence furent les suivants: a) le besoin pressant d'une décision en raison d'un décès imminent; b) une lacune quant à la connaissance des valeurs et des préférences de la mère au sujet du maintien de ses fonctions vitales au moyen d'une sonde pour gavage; c) un manque de connaissance quant à la réalité de l'alimentation par sonde; et d) la croyance que cette mesure ne prolongerait pas la vie ni la souffrance de la mère. De plus, neuf autres facteurs, moins importants, ont été déterminés. Cette étude est principalement axée sur l'amélioration de la sensibilité des professionnels de la santé vis-à-vis de l'angoisse qu'éprouvent les gens à décider de maintenir les fonctions vitales d'un proche et du mode de décision en tant que tel.

Keywords

Decision-makingEnteral Tube FeedingLife SupportEthnomethodology.Prise de décisionsalimentation par sonde entériquemaintien des fonctions vitalesethnométhodologie.
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Fall/automne 1993 , pp. 298 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Alemaychu, E, Molloy, DW, Guyatt, GH, Singer, J, Penington, G, Basile, J, Eisemann, M, Finucane, P, McMurdo, MTE, Powell, C, Zelmenowicz, A, Puxty, J, Power, C, Vitou, L, Levenson, SA, Turpie, ID. Variability in physicians' decision on caring for chronically ill elderly patients: An international study. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1991; 144(9): 1133–8.Google Scholar
2.Bristow, B, Nieswiadomy, RM. Support of patient autonomy in the do not resuscitate decision. Heart & Lung 1991; 20(1): 66–72.Google Scholar
3.Fader, AM, Gambert, SR, Nash, M, Gupta, KL, Escher, J. Implementing a “do-not-resuscitate”(DNR) policy in a nursing home. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 1989; 37(6): 544–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Farber, NJ, Bowman, SM, Major, DA, Green, WP. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patient factors and decision making. Archives of Internal Medicine 1984; 144: 2229–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Perry, SW, Schwartz, HI, Amchin, J. Determining resuscitation status: A survey of medical professionals. General Hospital Psychiatry 1986; 8(3): 198–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Watts, DT, Cassel, CK, Hickam, DH. Nurses' and physicians' attitudes toward tube-feeding decisions in long-term care. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 1986; 34: 607–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Wilson, DM. Long term tube feeding practices and involvement of nurses in tube feeding decisions. Canadian Journal of Aging 1991; 10(4): 333–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Lynn, J, Glover, J. Ethical decision-making in enteral nutrition. In: Coldwell, M. D. ed., Enteral and Tube Feeding (2nd ed.) (pp. 575–86). Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1990.Google Scholar
9.Johnson, RA, Justin, RG. Documenting patient's end-of-life decisions. Nurse Practitioner June 1988; 41–49.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Lo, BL, McLeod, GA, Saika, G. Patient attitudes to discussing life-sustaining treat-ment. Archives of Internal Medicine 1986; 146: 1613–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Robinson, GB. Advance directives — A legal view. Health Law Review, Health Law Institute, The University of Alberta 1991; 1(1): 3–6.Google Scholar
12.Witte, KL. Variables present in patients who are either resuscitated or not resuscitated in a medical intensive care unit. Heart & Lung 1984; 13(2): 159–63.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Frampton, MW, Mayewski, RJ. Physicians' and nurses' attitudes toward with-holding treatment in a community hospital. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1987; 2: 394–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Younger, SJ, Lewandowski, W, McClish, DK, Juknialis, BW, Coulton, C, Bartlett, ET. ‘Do not resuscitate’ orders. Incidence and implications in a medical intensive care unit. Journal of the American Medical Association 1985; 253(1): 54–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Bedell, SE, Pelle, D, Maher, PL, Cleary, PD. Do-not-resuscitate orders for critically ill patients in the hospital. How are they used and what is their impact? Journal of the American Medical Association 1986; 256(2): 233–7.Google ScholarPubMed
16.Bedell, SE, Delbanco, TL. Choices about cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. When do physicians talk with patients? The New England Journal of Medicine 1984; 310(17): 1089–93.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Frankl, D, Oye, RK, Bellamy, PE. Attitudes of hospitalized patients toward life support: A survey of 200 medical patients. The American Journal of Medicine 1989; 86(6): 645–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Wetle, T, Levkoff, S, Cwikel, J, Rosen, A. Nursing home resident participation in medical decisions: Perceptions and preferences. The Gerontologist 1988; 28(Supplement): 32–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Peck, A, Cohen, CE, Mulvihill, MN. Long-term enteral feeding of aged demented nursing home patients. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 1990; 38 (38): 1195–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Shmerling, RH, Bedell, SE, Lilienfeld, A, Delbanco, TL. Discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A study of elderly outpatients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1988; 3: 317–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Uhlmann, RF, Pearlman, RA, Cain, KC. Physicians' and spouses' predictions of elderly patients' preferences. Journal of Gerontology 1988; 45(5): M115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Ciocon, JO, Silverstone, FA, Graver, M, Foley, CJ. Tube feeding in elderly patients. Indications, benefits, and complications. Archives of Internal Medicine 1988; 148: 429–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Norbert, A, Hirschfeld, M. Feeding of severely demented patients in institutions:Interviews with caregivers in Israel. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1987; 12: 551–7.Google Scholar
24.Munhall, PL, Oiler, CJ. Nursing Research. A Qualitative perspective. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1986.Google Scholar
25.Yin, RKCase study research. Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.Google Scholar
26.Seaman, CH, Verhonick, PJ. Research methods for undergraduate students in nursing (2nd ed.). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1982.Google Scholar
27.Carr, W, Kemmis, S. Becoming critical. Education, knowledge, and action research. London: The Falmer Press, 1986.Google Scholar
28.Sharrock, W., Anderson, B.The ethnomethodologists. London: Tavistock Publications, 1986.Google Scholar
29.Turner, R. (ed.). Ethnomethodology. Selected Readings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1974.Google Scholar
30.Leiter, K. A primer on ethnomethodology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
31.Heritage, J. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.Google Scholar
32.Mehan, H, Wood, H. The reality of ethnomethodology. Malabar, FL: Robert, E. Kreiger Publishing Company, 1983.Google Scholar
33.Werner, O, Schoepfle, GM. Systematic fieldwork. Ethnographic analysis and data management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1987.Google Scholar
34.Robinson, CA, Thome, SE. Dilemmas of ethics and validity in qualitative nursing research. The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 1988; 20(1): 65–76.Google ScholarPubMed
35.Bodinsky, GH. Ethical dilemmas: A case study. Society of Gastroenterological Nursing Journal 1991; 13(4): 206–8; 82(3):37–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Goebel-Christopher, J. No second chance. The Canadian Nurse 1986; 82(3): 37–38.Google ScholarPubMed
37.Ivey, JM. No code. Why won't middle-aged children consent? Journal of Gerontological Nursing 1984; 10(5): 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Molloy, DW, Guyatt, GH. A comprehensive health care directive in a home for the aged. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1991; 145(4): 307–11.Google Scholar
39.Gramelspacher, GP, Howell, JD, Young, MJ. Perceptions of ethical problems by nurses and doctors. Archives of Internal Medicine 1986; 146: 577–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Deacon, J, Came, B. The right to die. A court hears a woman's desperate plea. Ma-clean's 1991, Dec. 9; 104(49): 49.Google Scholar
41.Bolton, MA. Who can let you die? Canadian Journal of Aging 1989; 8(3): 238–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Heitkemper, MM, Shaver, JF. Nursing research opportunities in enteral nutrition. Nursing Clinics of North America 1990; 24(2): 415–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Macklin, R. Ethical principles, individual rights, and medical practices. National Forum. The Phi Kappa Phi Journal 1989; 69(4): 25–27.Google Scholar
44.Edelmen, M. The political language of the helping professions. In: Shapiro, M. ed., Language and politics (pp. 44–60). New York: New York University Press, 1984.Google Scholar