Can versus should: Public expectation and the high-intervention death - A practical guide for clinicians.

Future healthcare journal Pub Date : 2026-03-27 eCollection Date: 2026-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.fhj.2026.100518
Sophia Henderson, Calvin Lightbody, Mark Taubert
{"title":"Can versus should: Public expectation and the high-intervention death - A practical guide for clinicians.","authors":"Sophia Henderson, Calvin Lightbody, Mark Taubert","doi":"10.1016/j.fhj.2026.100518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Escalation of medical intervention near the end of life has become increasingly common, often driven by public misperceptions of medical capabilities, cultural narratives of 'fighting' disease, and clinicians' discomfort with discussing limitations of more extreme treatment regimens. The result is the high-intervention death: intensive, invasive and frequently misaligned with patient values. This article examines the dynamics underpinning these decisions from the perspectives of emergency medicine, intensive care and palliative medicine. We describe the consequences of late acceptance of dying, the absence of advance and future care planning, and societal unpreparedness for death. We propose practical strategies to support better decision-making, including early goals-of-care discussions, compassionate communication, and a cultural shift towards acknowledging death as a realistic and acceptable outcome. Restoring humane, value-aligned care which still includes a plethora of treatments, albeit less invasive ones, requires clinicians to balance medical capability with compassion, clarity and courage.</p>","PeriodicalId":73125,"journal":{"name":"Future healthcare journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"100518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13063253/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future healthcare journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fhj.2026.100518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Escalation of medical intervention near the end of life has become increasingly common, often driven by public misperceptions of medical capabilities, cultural narratives of 'fighting' disease, and clinicians' discomfort with discussing limitations of more extreme treatment regimens. The result is the high-intervention death: intensive, invasive and frequently misaligned with patient values. This article examines the dynamics underpinning these decisions from the perspectives of emergency medicine, intensive care and palliative medicine. We describe the consequences of late acceptance of dying, the absence of advance and future care planning, and societal unpreparedness for death. We propose practical strategies to support better decision-making, including early goals-of-care discussions, compassionate communication, and a cultural shift towards acknowledging death as a realistic and acceptable outcome. Restoring humane, value-aligned care which still includes a plethora of treatments, albeit less invasive ones, requires clinicians to balance medical capability with compassion, clarity and courage.

可以与应该:公众期望与高干预死亡——临床医生的实用指南。
由于公众对医疗能力的误解、“对抗”疾病的文化叙事,以及临床医生对讨论更极端治疗方案的局限性感到不舒服,接近生命尽头的医疗干预升级已经变得越来越普遍。其结果是高干预死亡:密集的,侵入性的,经常与病人的价值观不一致。本文从急诊医学、重症监护和姑息医学的角度考察了支持这些决定的动态。我们描述了迟接受死亡的后果,缺乏提前和未来的护理计划,以及社会对死亡的不准备。我们提出了切实可行的策略来支持更好的决策,包括早期的护理目标讨论,富有同情心的沟通,以及将死亡视为现实和可接受的结果的文化转变。恢复人道的、价值一致的护理,其中仍然包括大量的治疗方法,尽管侵入性较小,需要临床医生在医疗能力与同情心、清晰度和勇气之间取得平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书