PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7526340

[Selection for a hospice--a multi-faceted task].

Abstract

The object with this article is to pass on experience regarding the registration of patients for admittance to Sankt Lukas Stiftelsens Hospice in Denmark. It is a large and difficult ethical problem, in how far one can accept a more or less unsure diagnosis in connection with admittance to a hospice, either because it has not been medically possible to reach, or because the patient is unable to accept a precise diagnosis. It can be difficult for the patient to drop curative treatment, and by doing so indirectly choose purely palliative treatment. The admittance staff of the hospice have a large responsibility. They should ensure, that patients and their relatives are fully informed of, what the hospice can offer, and especially what it cannot offer in the way of curative medicine. One must prefer, that patients qualified for admittance to the hospice are competent during the admittance stage. It would in many cases be troubling and difficult after duly supported assumptions to accept patients with non-malign diseases for admittance to the hospice.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Moe, I Hee. 1994. [Selection for a hospice--a multi-faceted task].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7526340/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Ethical problems in randomized clinical trials from the aspect of statistics. Part I. Is patient randomization acceptable from the ethical viewpoint?].

Randomized clinical trial is currently thought to be the most reliable method for comparing therapeutic effects. The article tries to answer the question whether chance allocation of patients into various therapeutic arms is acceptable from the ethical point of view. It deals with the conflict between two concepts: of individual ethics mostly defending interests of individual participants of each trial, and collective ethics based on well-designed experiments that are the sole source of reliable estimation of therapeutic effect and their conclusions can change clinical practice and help patients in the future. The article suggests this possible solution: providing there is no prevailing consensus as for superiority of one of the compared therapies, the offer to participate in randomized clinical trial is not only acceptable but necessary in view of individual patients' right and respect of their autonomy. If an informed consent is obtained the principles of medical ethics have not been violated. Finally, a few alternative trial designs are presented.

Ethics, Medical↗