Decision-making ethics in regards to life-sustaining interventions: when physicians refer to what other patients decide.

Background: Health decisions occur in a context with omnipresent social influences. Information concerning what other patients decide may present certain interventions as more desirable than others.

Objectives: To explore how physicians refer to what other people decide in conversations about the relevancy of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders (DNAR).

Methods: We recorded forty-three physician-patient admission interviews taking place in a hospital in French-speaking Switzerland, during which CPR is discussed. Data was analysed with conversation analysis.

Results: Reference to what other people decide in regards to CPR is used five times, through reported speech. The reference is generic, and employed as a resource to deal with trouble encountered with the patient's preference, either because it is absent or potentially incompatible with the medical recommendation. In our data, it is a way for physicians to present decisional paths and to steer towards the relevancy of DNAR orders ("Patients tell us 'no futile care'"). By calling out to a sense of membership, it builds towards the patient embracing norms that are associated with a desirable or relevant social group.

Conclusions: Introducing DNAR decisions in terms of what other people opt for is a way for physicians to bring up the eventuality of allowing natural death in a less overt way. Formulating treatment choices in terms of what other people do has implications in terms of supporting autonomous and informed decision making, since it nudges patients towards conformity with what is presented as the most preferable choice on the basis of social norms.