Background The right to self-determination is a fundamental human right and is recognized in several national constitutions (e.g. German Constitution: Article 1, Section 1, Part 1), as is the guarantee of human dignity and the right to physical integrity. 1 For this, 'informed consent' between the patient and health care providers is essential. Discussions and questionnaire-based

Culture creates the context within which individuals experience life and comprehend moral meaning of illness, suffering and death. The ways the patient, family and the physician communicate and make decisions in the end-of-life care are profoundly influenced by culture. What is considered as right or wrong in the healthcare setting may depend on the socio-cultural context. The present article is intended to delve into the cross-cultural perspectives in ethical decision making in the end-of-life scenario. We attempt to address the dynamics of the roles of patient, family and physician therein across two countries from East and West, namely, India and Germany. In India, where illness is more a shared family affair than an individual incident, a physician is likely to respect the family's wishes and may withhold the [Symbol: see text]naked truth' about the diagnosis of a fatal disease to the patient. In Germany, a physician is legally required to inform the patient about the disease. In India, advance directive being virtually non-existent, the family acts as the locus of the decision-making process, taking into account the economic cost of available medical care. In Germany, advance directive is regarded as mandatory and healthcare is covered by insurance. Family and the physician appear to play larger roles in ethical decision making for patients in India than for those in Germany, who place greater emphasis on autonomy of the individual patient. Our study explicates how culture matters in ethical decision-making and why the bioethical discourse is necessary in the concrete realities of the socio-cultural context. To explore the possibility of finding a common ground of morality across different cultures while acknowledging and respecting cultural diversity, thus remains a formidable challenge for the bioethicists.

No abstract

Of advance directives is widely accepted among the tumor patients surveyed. Advanced directives are not exclusively seen as instruments for surrogate decision making, but also as mediums to improve communication. Training of physicians and additional offers for patients could increase the actual number of ADs and perhaps improve physicians and relatives understanding of patients needs and wishes.

The task of physicians is to maintain life, to protect and re-establish health as well as to alleviate suffering and to accompany the dying until death, under consideration of the self-determination rights of patients. Increasingly more and differentiated options for this are becoming available in intensive care medicine. Within the framework of professional responsibility physicians must decide which of the available treatment options are indicated. This process of decision-making is determined by answering the following question: when and under which circumstances is induction or continuation of intensive care treatment justified? In addition to the indications, the advance directive of the patient is the deciding factor. Medical indications represent a scientifically based estimation that a therapeutic measure is suitable in order to achieve a defined therapy target with a given probability. The ascertainment of the patient directive is achieved in a graded process depending on the state of consciousness of the patient. The present article offers orientation assistance to physicians for these decisions which are an individual responsibility.

Background: "Terminal sedation" regarded as the use of sedation in (pre-)terminal patients with treatment-refractory symptoms is controversially discussed not only within palliative medicine. While supporters consider terminal sedation as an indispensable palliative medical treatment option, opponents disapprove of it as "slow euthanasia". Against this background, we interviewed medical ethics experts by questionnaire on the term and the moral acceptance of terminal sedation in order to find out how they think about this topic. We were especially interested in whether experts with a professional medical and nursing background think differently about the topic than experts without this background.

No abstract

No abstract