Cited by 44Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Considerations About Hastening Death Among Parents of Children Who Die of Cancer

Open access
Dussel, Veronica·2010·Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the frequency of hastening death discussions, describe current parental endorsement of hastening death and intensive symptom management, and explore whether children's pain influences these views in a sample of parents whose child died of cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Two tertiary-care US pediatric institutions. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 141 parents of children who died of cancer (response rate, 64%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of parents who (1) considered or (2) discussed hastening death during the child's end of life and who endorsed (3) hastening death or (4) intensive symptom management in vignettes portraying children with end-stage cancer. RESULTS: A total of 19 of 141 (13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-19%) parents considered requesting hastened death for their child and 9% (95% CI, 4%-14%) discussed hastening death; consideration of hastening death tended to increase with an increase in the child's suffering from pain. In retrospect, 34% (95% CI, 26%-42%) of parents reported that they would have considered hastening their child's death had the child been in uncontrollable pain, while 15% or less would consider hastening death for nonphysical suffering. In response to vignettes, 50% (95% CI, 42%-58%) of parents endorsed hastening death while 94% (95% CI, 90%-98%) endorsed intensive pain management. Parents were more likely to endorse hastening death if the vignette involved a child in pain compared with coma (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: More than 10% of parents considered hastening their child's death; this was more likely if the child was in pain. Attention to pain and suffering and education about intensive symptom management may mitigate consideration of hastening death among parents of children with cancer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.295

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Provider discomfort with palliative care conversations and misconceptions that palliative care is only beneficial when treatment is no longer effective are barriers.

    “Additional barriers include provider discomfort with palliative care conversations,[2,19,23,38,57] or misconceptions regarding palliative care as only beneficial when treatment is no longer effective[32,58,59] both of which may benefit from clarity in palliative care guidelines.[60]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says physicians find conversations about hastening death highly challenging, offering limited support for the provider-discomfort part. It does not say providers are uncomfortable with palliative care conversations generally, or that people believe palliative care is beneficial only after treatment stops working. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Over one-third of 141 bereaved parents retrospectively reported they would have considered hastening their child's death if the child had been in uncontrollable pain.

    “Over one-third of 141 bereaved parents retrospectively reported that they would have considered hastening their child’s death had the child been in uncontrollable pain.[19]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Families whose primary oncologist clearly explained treatment options during their child's end-of-life care and who involved home-care services were more likely to plan for the child's location of death.

    “Relatedly, families whose primary oncologist clearly explained treatment options during their child’s end of life care and who involved home-care services were more likely to plan for child’s location of death.[19]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Methods > Parental survey passage says location of death was collected, while the Implications/Conclusions discuss explaining symptom-management options in relation to considerations of hastening death. Neither passage reports whether oncologists’ explanations or home-care services were associated with planning the child’s location of death. Searches for home-care services, planned location of death, and explained treatment options found no such result in our copy; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The opportunity to plan location of death is associated with high-quality palliative care.

    “The opportunity to plan location of death is associated with high quality palliative care and may suggest that communication regarding planning rather than actual location of death may be a more relevant outcome.[19,43]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Methods (Parental survey; page unavailable) say that location of death was collected, but do not address whether parents had an opportunity to plan it. The Discussion (page unavailable) concerns planning symptom-management options, not an association between planning the location of death and high-quality palliative care. Searches for planned place or location of death and palliative-care quality found no passage making that association. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Communication regarding planning, rather than actual location of death, may be a more relevant outcome.

    “The opportunity to plan location of death is associated with high quality palliative care and may suggest that communication regarding planning rather than actual location of death may be a more relevant outcome.[19,43]”

    From Palliative Care as a Standard of Care in Pediatric Oncology (2015) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Methods > Parental survey section says location of death was collected, but does not discuss planning that location. The Discussion addresses conversations about hastening death and symptom management, not whether communication about location planning is a more relevant palliative-care outcome than actual location of death. Searches for location-of-death planning and palliative-care quality found no passage addressing that comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dussel, V.
Venue
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
Published
2010-03-01
Volume
164
Issue
3
Pages
231
ISSN
1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972528723
Cited by
44
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (T32 HP 10018)
  • National Cancer Institute (K07CA096746)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
hastening death, childhood cancer, parental attitudes, end-of-life care, pain management, child suffering, parental decision-making, palliative care, end-of-life discussions
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Death, Boston, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Minnesota, Neoplasms, Pain, Parents, Retrospective Studies, Socioeconomic Factors, Comorbidity, Euthanasia, Active

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review