Background: Since the 60s and with increasing intensity a discussion have continued about balance between useful and useless/harmful treatment. Different attempts have been done to create sustainable criteria and recommendations to manage the situations of futile treatment near the end of life. Obviously, to be able to withhold (WH) or withdraw (WD) treatment which is no longer appropriate or even harmful and burdensome for the patient, other processes than strict medical (or physiological) assessments are necessary. Aim. To shed light on the arguments regarding to WH or WD futile treatment we performed two studies of physicians’ and the general populations’ choice and prioritized arguments in the treatment of a 72-year-old woman suffering from a large intra-cerebral bleeding with bad prognosis (Papers I and II) and a new born boy with postpartum anoxic brain damage (Papers III and IV). Methods. Postal questionnaires based on two cases presented above involving severely ill patients were used. Arguments for and against to WH or WD treatment, and providing treatment that might hasten death were presented. The respondents evaluated and prioritized arguments for and against withholding neurosurgery, withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and providing drugs to alleviate pain and distress. We also asked what would happen to physicians’ own trust if they took the action described, and what the physician estimated would happen to the general publics’ trust in health services (Paper IV). Results. Approximately 70% of the physicians and 46% of the general public responded in both surveys. The 72-year-old woman: A majority of doctors (82.3%) stated that they would withhold treatment, whereas a minority of the general public (40.2%) would do so; the arguments forwarded and considerations regarding quality of life differed significantly between the two groups. Quality-of-life aspects were stressed as an important argument by the majority of both neurosurgeons and ICU-physicians (76.8% vs. 54.0%); however, significantly more neurosurgeons regarded this argument as the most important. A minority in both groups, although more ICU-physicians, supported a patient’s previously expressed wish of not ending in a persistent vegetative state as the most important argument. As the case clinically progressed, a consensus evolved regarding the arguments for decision making. The new born child: A majority of both physicians [56 % (CI 50–62)] and the general population [53 % (CI 49–58)] supported arguments for withdrawing ventilator treatment. A large majority in both groups supported arguments for alleviating the patient’s symptoms even if the treatment hastened death, but the two groups display significantly different views on whether or not to provide drugs with the additional intention of hastening death, although the difference disappeared when we compared subgroups of those who were for or against euthanasia-like actions. Conclusions. There are indeed considerable differences in how physicians and the general public assess and reason in critical care situations, but the more hopelessly ill the patient became the more the groups' assessments tended to converge, although they prioritized different arguments. In order to avoid unnecessary dispute and miscommunication, it is important that health care providers are aware of the public's views, expectations, and preferences. Our hypothesis—physicians’ estimations of others’ opinions are influenced by their own opinions—was corroborated. This might have implications in research as well as in clinical decision-making.

Bakgrund: Beslut om att avstå och avbryta livsuppehållande behandling har de senaste åren ökat i antal inom intensivvården i Europa. Intensivvårdspatienter har ofta nedsatt autonomi, och läkare och sjuksköterskor måste därför försöka avgöra vad som är rätt för patienten. Detta kan orsaka moralisk stress eftersom att det inte finns några enhetliga riktlinjer för när den livsuppehållande behandlingen övergår till att vara meningslös. Motiv: Beslut kring att avstå eller avbryta livsuppehållande behandling kan vara ett mångfacetterat etiskt beslut som försvåras av intensivvårdspatientens nedsatta autonomi. Den föreliggande studien syftar till att belysa de etiska utmaningar som uppstår när beslutet ska fattas. Syfte: Att belysa läkares och sjuksköterskors resonemang kring att avstå och avbryta livsuppehållande behandling på en intensivvårdsavdelning. Metod: En vinjettstudie genomfördes med individuella semistrukturerade intervjuer med intensivvårdsläkare (n=5) och intensivvårdssjuksköterskor (n=5). Insamlad data analyserades med kvalitativ innehållsanalys. Resultat: Deltagarnas resonemang kring att avstå och avbryta livsuppehållande behandling utmynnade i nio subteman som delades in i tre olika teman; Strävan efter att göra gott, Involvering av närstående och Behov av reflektion i teamet. Konklusion: Teamet ansågs betydelsefullt i beslut kring livsuppehållande behandling. Det fanns ibland olika uppfattningar inom teamet kring vilken behandling som gagnar patienten och vidare forskning behövs kring metoder, exempelvis etiska ronder, för att överbrygga dessa meningsskiljaktigheter. Om de etiska utmaningarna läkare och sjuksköterskor upplever kring beslut att avstå eller avbryta livsuppehållande behandling uppmärksammas och diskuteras, ökar chanserna för att alla involverade känner att rätt beslut fattas för patienten som individ. / Background: There is an increase of decisions to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment within intensive care units in Europe. Intensive care patients often have a limited autonomy and physicians and nurses therefore have to decide what is right for the patient. This can cause moral stress due to a lack of unitary guidelines for when life sustaining treatment becomes futile. Motive: Decisions to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment can be a multifaceted ethical dilemma that is complicated by the intensive care patients' limited autonomy. This study aims to illustrate the ethical challenges occurring when this decision is to be made. Aim: To illustrate the reasoning of physicians' and nurses' about withholding and withdrawing life sustaining treatment in an intensive care unit. Methods: A vignette study was conducted with individual semi structured interviews with intensive care physicians (n=5) and intensive care nurses (n=5). Collected data was analysed with qualitative content analysis. Result: The participants reasoning to withhold or withdraw life sustaining treatment resulted in nine subthemes that was further divided into three themes; Striving to do good, Involment of relatives and A need to reflect within the team. Conclusion: The team was considered important in decisions regarding life- sustaining treatment. Sometimes there were different views within the team about what treatment would benefit the patient and further research is needed of methods, such as ethical rounds to overcome disagreements regarding decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment within intensive care. If these ethical challenges experienced by physicians and nurses due to these decisions are acknowledged and discussed, chances increase that everyone involved feels that the right decision is made for the patient as an individual.