Objective Considerable controversy over the justifications for forgoing life-sustaining treatment to patients with advanced dementia (AD) exists. Based on an ethnographic study, the decision-making practices for forgoing tube feeding and antibiotic treatment for AD patients in the U.S is examined. Methods Prospective case studies were undertaken in a dementia special care unit (BDSC) over a period of six months. Data sources included clinical observation notes from 10 patients, and interview notes from their family members and healthcare providers. Three strategies were used to manage the data: event analysis, content analysis and cross-case analysis. The American Caucasian culture and hospice care culture provided the context for analysis. Results Two patterns of decision-making were practiced in BDSC: (1) advance decision-making with respect paid to the patient's wishes, and (2) advance decision-making focused on what is best for the patient. Differences in justifications for forgoing tube feeding and forgoing antibiotic treatment were discussed. Conclusions Forgoing life-sustaining treatment decision is difficult to make within the clinical context. Underpinning these difficulties are the predominant values in current medical practice that support the biological determinants of life and medical technology for enhancing the quality of life. In resolving these difficulties, a moral paradigm shift in two respects is required for framing the care of patients dying with AD. They are a shift from the medical protraction of life and a shift towards forms of care that enhance quality of life within the natural-organic framework of emotional, relational, esthetic and spiritual well-being. In this study, a paradigm shift of values underpinning the practice of forgoing life-sustaining treatments for AD patients was observed in three aspects. First, the emphasis on prognostication based on biomedical markers in predicting the length of survival is shifted to a focus on the "diagnosis of dying". This act facilitates the transition from connecting the choice of treatment with the goal of resolving the emergent medical problem to that of the goal of comfort care. Second, the overriding concern in conventional medical practice with preserving life is shifting to an overriding concern of "what is best for the patient." Third, in the last days of life, the conventional approach of "trying to do everything for the patient" was true in BDSC, but the approach had shifted from a technological to a relational one. Providing a peaceful and dignified environment in which the patient could die in the last days are the primary concern.

Objective:To investigate the effects of different chemotherapy dose intensity on the short-term efficacy and adverse reactions of patients with advanced colon cancer.Methods:A real-world database of patients with advanced colon cancer in Wangjing Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences and China-Japan Friendship Hospital from January 2017 to December 2020 was established, including 105 patients treated with the same chemotherapy regimen for two consecutive cycles. The patients were grouped according to the average relative dose intensity (ARDI) of chemotherapy, and the population differences, treatment regimens, short-term efficacy and adverse reactions of different chemotherapy dose intensities were evaluated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the predictive value of ARDI for short-term efficacy.Results:There were 31 patients in the high dose intensity group (ARDI≥80%) , 34 patients in the medium dose intensity group (80%0.05) . ROC curve analysis found that the area under the curve predicting objective response was 0.70, the sensitivity was 92.30%, and the specificity was 52.10% when the chemotherapy ARDI threshold was 64%. Conclusion:In the real world, colon cancer patients receiving high dose intensive chemotherapy have better objective response rate, and tumor markers decreased significantly. The baseline status of colon cancer patients receiving low dose intensive chemotherapy is poor, but there is no statistically significant difference in disease control rate between patients receiving low dose intensive chemotherapy and patients receiving high dose intensive chemotherapy, and the adverse reactions are controllable.