IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v41y1995i4p537-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Activists and delegators: Elderly patients' preferences about control at the end of life

Author

Listed:
  • Kelner, Merrijoy

Abstract

The views of elderly patients concerning control over the dying process are explored in this paper. Thirty-eight hospitalized elderly patients were interviewed about their attitudes, both general and personal, toward exerting control over end-of-life decisions. A majority (27) of the participants could be categorized as 'activists', that is, they preferred to have a voice in decision-making at the end of life. There were also a number of 'delegators' (11) in the study. They preferred to delegate the decision-making to their physicians, to God, or to fate. Activists were better educated, had held more professional and managerial jobs and tended more often to be middle class rather than lower class. Their advanced sophistication about consumer rights and their general knowledge of health issues is reflected in their greater interest in patient control over dying. Most activists rejected the idea of euthanasia or assisted suicide for themselves, but favoured the withholding and withdrawing of treatment. It is possible that these ideal types of 'activists' and 'delegators' could anchor a continuum that is measurable. Such a scale could facilitate the differentiation of the elderly on this issue and thereby prove useful in the development of appropriate policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelner, Merrijoy, 1995. "Activists and delegators: Elderly patients' preferences about control at the end of life," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 537-545, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:4:p:537-545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)00381-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    2. Vandrevala, Tushna & Hampson, Sarah E. & Daly, Tom & Arber, Sara & Thomas, Hilary, 2006. "Dilemmas in decision-making about resuscitation--a focus group study of older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 1579-1593, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:4:p:537-545. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.