IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i11p2328-2341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of the bioethicist in family meetings about end of life care

Author

Listed:
  • Watkins, Liza T.
  • Sacajiu, Galit
  • Karasz, Alison

Abstract

There has been little study of the content of bioethicists' communication during family meeting consultations about end of life care. In the literature, two roles for bioethicists are usually described: the "consultant" role, in which bioethicists define and support ethical principles such as those enshrined in the "rational choice" model; and the "mediator" role, which focuses on the enhancement of communication in order to reduce conflict. In this study, we use observational data to explore how bioethicists support the practice of decision making during family meetings about end of life care. In a study conducted in the Bronx, New York, USA, researchers observed and recorded 24 decision-making meetings between hospital staff and family members of elderly patients identified as being in the last stages of illness, who were unable or unwilling to make the decision for themselves. Bioethics consultants were present during five of those meetings. Although bioethicists referred to the "rational choice" decision-making hierarchy, we did not see the systematic exploration described in the literature. Rather, our data show that bioethicists tended to employ elements of the rational model at particular turning points in the decision-making process in order to achieve pragmatic goals. As mediators, bioethicists worked to create consensus between family and staff and provided invaluable sympathy and comfort to distressed family members. We also found evidence of a context-dependent approach to mediation, with bioethicists' contributions generally supporting staff views about end of life care. Bioethicists' called to consult on family meetings about end of life care do not appear to adhere to a strict interpretation of the official guidelines. In order to negotiate the difficult terrain of end of life decision making, our data show that bioethicists often add a third role, "persuader", to official roles of "consultant" and "mediator".

Suggested Citation

  • Watkins, Liza T. & Sacajiu, Galit & Karasz, Alison, 2007. "The role of the bioethicist in family meetings about end of life care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2328-2341, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:11:p:2328-2341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00364-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Slomka, Jacquelyn, 1992. "The negotiation of death: Clinical decision making at the end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 251-259, August.
    2. Gordon, Deborah R. & Paci, Eugenio, 1997. "Disclosure practices and cultural narratives: Understanding concealment and silence around cancer in Tuscany, Italy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1433-1452, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sinclair, Craig & Smith, Jessica & Toussaint, Yann & Auret, Kirsten, 2014. "Discussing dying in the diaspora: Attitudes towards advance care planning among first generation Dutch and Italian migrants in rural Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 86-93.
    2. Foley, Rose-Anna & Hurard, Lucie Lechevalier & Anchisi, Annick & Anchisi, Sandro, 2019. "Rising to the medication's requirements: The experience of elderly cancer patients receiving palliative chemotherapy in the elective oncogeriatrics field," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    3. Daker-White, Gavin & Rogers, Anne & Kennedy, Anne & Blakeman, Thomas & Blickem, Christian & Chew-Graham, Carolyn, 2015. "Non-disclosure of chronic kidney disease in primary care and the limits of instrumental rationality in chronic illness self-management," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 31-39.
    4. Jerant, Anthony F. & Azari, Rahman S. & Nesbitt, Thomas S. & Edwards-Goodbee, Adrienne & Meyers, Frederick J., 2006. "The palliative care in assisted living (PCAL) pilot study: Successes, shortfalls, and methodological implications," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 199-207, January.
    5. Natalie Pattison & Jude Mclellan & Lara Roskelly & Kirsty McLeod & Theresa Wiseman, 2018. "Managing clinical uncertainty: An ethnographic study of the impact of critical care outreach on end‐of‐life transitions in ward‐based critically ill patients with a life‐limiting illness," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(21-22), pages 3900-3912, November.
    6. Ducey, Ariel & Donoso, Claudia & Ross, Sue & Robert, Magali, 2020. "From anatomy to patient experience in pelvic floor surgery: Mindlines, evidence, responsibility, and transvaginal mesh," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    7. Mei, Xiao & Tu, Jiong, 2021. "Values, skills, and decision-making: A cultural sociological approach to explaining diagnostic disclosure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    8. Aita, Kaoruko & Kai, Ichiro, 2010. "Physicians' psychosocial barriers to different modes of withdrawal of life support in critical care: A qualitative study in Japan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 616-622, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:11:p:2328-2341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.