ObjectiveThis is an observational study on well-being and end-of-life preferences in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in the locked-in state (LIS) in a Polish sample within the EU Joint Programme–Neurodegenerative Disease Research study NEEDSinALS (NEEDSinALS.com).MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, patients with ALS in LIS (n = 19) were interviewed on well-being (quality of life, depression) as a measure of psychosocial adaptation, coping mechanisms, and preferences towards life-sustaining treatments (ventilation, percutaneous endoscopic gastroscopy) and hastened death. Also, clinical data were recorded (ALS Functional Rating Scale–revised version). Standardized questionnaires (Anamnestic Comparative Self-Assessment [ACSA], Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), ALS Depression Inventory–12 items [ADI-12], schedule of attitudes toward hastened death [SAHD], Motor Neuron Disease Coping Scale) were used, which were digitally transcribed; answers were provided via eye-tracking control. In addition, caregivers were asked to judge patients' well-being.ResultsThe majority of patients had an ACSA score >0 and a SEIQoL score >50% (indicating positive quality of life) and ADI-12 <29 (indicating no clinically relevant depression). Physical function did not reflect subjective well-being; even more, those with no residual physical function had a positive well-being. All patients would again choose the life-sustaining techniques they currently used and their wish for hastened death was low (SAHD <10). Caregivers significantly underestimated patient's well-being.InterpretationSome patients with ALS in LIS maintain a high sense of well-being despite severe physical restrictions. They are content with their life-sustaining treatments and have a strong will to live, which both may be underestimated by their families and public opinion.

Current use of therapeutic options is determined by medical condition in analogy to clinical guidelines. For future considerations, other factors such as cultural background are crucial, yielding hurdles to be regarded in the implementation of advanced directives in a multicultural environment.

BackgroundHealthcare legislation in European countries is similar in many respects. Most importantly, the framework of informed consent determines that physicians have the duty to provide detailed information about available therapeutic options and that patients have the right to refuse measures that contradict their personal values. However, when it comes to end-of-life decision-making a number of differences exist in the more specific regulations of individual countries. These differences and how they might nevertheless impact patient’s choices will be addressed in the current debate.Main textIn this article we show how the legal and medical frameworks of Germany, Poland and Sweden differ with regard to end-of-life decisions for patients with a fatal progressive disease. Taking Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) as an example, we systematically compare clinical guidelines and healthcare law, pointing out the country-specific differences most relevant for existential decision-making. A fictional case report discusses the implications of these differences for a patient with ALS living in either of the three countries. Patients with ALS in Germany, Poland and Sweden are confronted with a similar spectrum of treatment options. However, the analysis of the normative frameworks shows that the conditions for making existential decisions differ considerably in Germany, Poland and Sweden. Specifically, these differences concern (1) the legal status of advance directives, (2) the conditions under which life-sustaining therapies are started or withheld, and (3) the legal regulations on assisted dying.ConclusionAccording to the presented data, regulations of terminating life-sustaining treatments and the framework of “informed consent” are quite differently understood and implemented in the legal setting of the three countries. It is possible, and even likely, that these differences in the legal and medical frameworks have a considerable influence on existential decisions of patients with ALS.