Background: Relatives of intensive care unit patients who lack or have reduced capacity to consent are entitled to information and participation in decision-making together with the patient. Practice varies with legislation in different countries. In Norway, crucial decisions such as withdrawing treatment are made by clinicians, usually morally justified to relatives with reference to the principle of non-maleficence. The relatives should, however, be consulted about whether they know what the patient would have wished in the situation. Research objectives: To examine and describe relatives’ experiences of responsibility in the intensive care unit decision-making process. Research design: A secondary analysis of interviews with bereaved relatives of intensive care unit patients was performed, using a narrative analytical approach. Participants and research context: In all, 27 relatives of 21 deceased intensive care unit patients were interviewed about their experiences from the end-of-life decision-making process. Most interviews took place in the participants’ homes, 3–12 months after the patient’s death. Ethical considerations: Based on informed consent, the study was approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services and by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics. Findings: The results show that intensive care unit relatives experienced a sense of responsibility in the decision-making process, independently of clinicians’ intention of sparing them. Some found this troublesome. Three different variants of participation were revealed, ranging from paternalism to a more active role for relatives. Discussion: For the study participants, the sense of responsibility reflects the fact that ethics and responsibility are grounded in the individual’s relationship to other people. Relatives need to be included in a continuous dialogue over time to understand decisions and responsibility. Conclusion: Nurses and physicians should acknowledge and address relatives’ sense of responsibility, include them in regular dialogue and help them separate their responsibility from that of the clinicians.
'End-of-life' decision making within intensive care - objective, consistent, defensible?
