Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:10:33.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Communication contexts about illness, death and dying for people with intellectual disabilities and life-limiting illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2011

Karen Ryan*
Affiliation:
St Francis Hospice, Dublin, Ireland
Suzanne Guerin
Affiliation:
University College Dublin, School of Psychology, Dublin, Ireland
Philip Dodd
Affiliation:
St. Michael's House, Dublin, Ireland; University College Dublin, Centre for Disability Studies, Dublin, Ireland
John McEvoy
Affiliation:
Midway Services, Co. Meath, Ireland; Dundalk Institute of Technology, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Sciences, Dundalk, Ireland
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Karen Ryan, St. Francis Hospice, Station Rd., Raheny, Dublin 5, Ireland. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

The general population has been involved in considerable debate about communication and awareness within the context of death and dying. However, there has been little research on how matters of communication on this topic are handled for people with life-limiting illness and intellectual disabilities. This qualitative study explored how staff managed communication about death and dying with people with intellectual disabilities in a Health Service Executive area in Ireland.

Method:

Ninety-one individuals took part in 16 focus groups. Interviews were analysed using framework analysis.

Results:

Participants infrequently discussed death and dying with people with intellectual disabilities. Participants operated most commonly in suspicious awareness environments with people with mild-to-moderate intellectual disabilities, and closed awareness environments with people with severe intellectual disabilities. The majority of participants did not hold absolute opinions that talking about illness, death, and dying with people with intellectual disabilities was “wrong.” Rather, they were concerned that their lack of skill and experience in the area would cause harm if they engaged in open conversations. Relatives had an influential role on the process of communication. Participants were strongly motivated to provide quality care and were willing to consider alternative approaches to communication if this would benefit people with intellectual disabilities.

Significance of results:

Although there has been a shift toward conditional open awareness of death and dying in Western society, people with intellectual disabilities have not been afforded the same opportunity to engage in open discussion of their mortality. This study points to the urgent need to engage in debate about this issue in order to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities receive high quality palliative care toward the end of life.

Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, H., Burns, S. & Flynn, M. (2002). Supporting People Though Terminal Illness and Death in Today and Tomorrow: The Report of the Growing Older with Learning Disabilities Programme. London: The Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
Department of Health. (2001). Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century, Cm 5086. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
Dodd, P., Dowling, S. & Hollins, S. (2005). A review of the emotional, psychiatric and behavioural responses to bereavement in people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 537543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, D. & Copp, G. (1999). Communication and awareness about dying in the 1990s. Palliative Medicine, 13, 459568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1965). Awareness of Dying. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Leick, N. & Davidson-Neilson, M. (1991). Healing Pain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lennox, N., Diggens, J. & Ugoni, A.M. (1997). The general practice care of people with intellectual disability: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41, 380390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, S., Cullen, C., Kavanagh, S., et al. (2004). Learning disabilities. In Health Care Needs Assessment, Vol 1. (2nd ed.), Stevens, A., Raftery, J., Mant, J., et al. (eds.). pp. 451542. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, J. & Spencer, L. (1993). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Analysing Qualitative Data, Bryman, A. & Burgess, R. (eds.). pp 173194. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Todd, S. (2002). Death does not become us: The absence of death and dying in intellectual disability research. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 38, 225239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuffrey-Wijne, I. (2002). The palliative care needs of people with intellectual disabilities: A case study. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 8, 222232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuffrey-Wijne, I., Hogg, J. & Curfs, L (2007). End of life and palliative care for people with intellectual disability who have cancer or other life-limiting illness: A review of the literature and available resources. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 20, 331344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders. Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar