Vignette 5 Terminal prostatic cancer with septicaemia
| Doctor | Reasons | |
|---|---|---|
| *The responses to the vignettes which reflect ethical rather than medical reasoning. | ||
| GP | ||
| Admit | 8 | 5 thought the patient was treatable |
| 1 said it depended on the premorbid state | ||
| 1 did not specify | ||
| 1 thought it depended on how terminal the patient was but would only not admit if they were previously unconscious | ||
| NH care | 5 | 2 because of the terminal nature of the disease |
| 1 because the patient could be treated in the NH | ||
| 1 would first try to treat in the NH but if the patient deteriorated may decide to admit | ||
| 1 would treat in NH. May ring someone for advice if no improvement. | ||
| Unsure | 4 | 2 because it depended on what the relatives wanted |
| 1 because it depended on what the patient wanted and how terminal he was | ||
| 1 because it depended on how advanced the cancer was | ||
| Geriatrician | ||
| Admit | 6 | All said septicaemia is reversible with IV antibiotics |
| NH care | 7 | 3 because the patient is terminally ill |
| 2 because treatment could be provided in the NH | ||
| 1 provided IV antibiotics could be administered in the NH | ||
| 1 because there was an argument for him to be kept comfortable* | ||
| Unsure | 5 | 2 because not enough information was provided |
| 2 because they were unclear as to how terminal the patient was | ||
| 1 because there is no blanket rule* | ||