Can versus should: Public expectation and the high-intervention death – A practical guide for clinicians

Escalation of medical intervention near the end of life has become increasingly common, often driven by public misperceptions of medical capabilities, cultural narratives of ‘fighting’ disease, and clinicians’ discomfort with discussing limitations of more extreme treatment regimens. The result is the high-intervention death: intensive, invasive and frequently misaligned with patient values. This article examines the dynamics underpinning these decisions from the perspectives of emergency medicine, intensive care and palliative medicine. We describe the consequences of late acceptance of dying, the absence of advance and future care planning, and societal unpreparedness for death. We propose practical strategies to support better decision-making, including early goals-of-care discussions, compassionate communication, and a cultural shift towards acknowledging death as a realistic and acceptable outcome. Restoring humane, value-aligned care which still includes a plethora of treatments, albeit less invasive ones, requires clinicians to balance medical capability with compassion, clarity and courage.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Future Healthcare Journal
Published
2026-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fhj.2026.100518
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
41.85
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can versus should: Public expectation and the high-intervention death – A practical guide for clinicians

Calvin J Lightbody, Mark Taubert, S. Henderson
1 citations
Future Healthcare Journal
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
41.85
article

Can versus should: Public expectation and the high-intervention death – A practical guide for clinicians

Calvin J Lightbody, Mark Taubert, S. Henderson
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Escalation of medical intervention near the end of life has become increasingly common, often driven by public misperceptions of medical capabilities, cultural narratives of ‘fighting’ disease, and clinicians’ discomfort with discussing limitations of more extreme treatment regimens. The result is the high-intervention death: intensive, invasive and frequently misaligned with patient values. This article examines the dynamics underpinning these decisions from the perspectives of emergency medicine, intensive care and palliative medicine. We describe the consequences of late acceptance of dying, the absence of advance and future care planning, and societal unpreparedness for death. We propose practical strategies to support better decision-making, including early goals-of-care discussions, compassionate communication, and a cultural shift towards acknowledging death as a realistic and acceptable outcome. Restoring humane, value-aligned care which still includes a plethora of treatments, albeit less invasive ones, requires clinicians to balance medical capability with compassion, clarity and courage.

Future Healthcare JournalVol. 13(1)
Velindre NHS Trust (GB), Royal United Hospital (GB), Hairmyres Hospital (GB), Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
41.85
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Can versus should: Public expectation and the high-intervention death – A practical guide for clinicians — Calvin J Lightbody, Mark Taubert, et al. · Future Healthcare Journal (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS