Education Library

Special Topics · Article

Dialysis & Informed Consent

The conversation dialysis patients are rarely given — conservative kidney management vs. dialysis, what life on dialysis actually requires, and the questions you are entitled to ask.

Rev. Allie Johnson

Sanctified Healer · Monastic Medicine Practitioner

Conservative Management vs. Dialysis

Most patients are offered a choice between types of dialysis — not a choice about whether to start dialysis at all. That is a consent problem, not a clinical inevitability.

What you're typically told

"Your kidneys are failing. You need dialysis."

What you're rarely told

For certain patients — particularly older adults with significant comorbidities — conservative kidney management may offer comparable survival with substantially better quality of life.

What the research suggests

The survival picture is more complicated than it appears

Murtagh et al., 2007 — Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

In patients over 75 with significant comorbidity, survival with conservative kidney management (CKM) was not significantly different from dialysis. Median survival was 13 months with CKM versus 21 months with dialysis — but dialysis patients spent a greater proportion of that time in a medical facility.

Tamura et al., 2009 — New England Journal of Medicine

Among nursing home residents who initiated dialysis, 58% died within the first year. Of those who survived, 70% experienced significant functional decline during the first year on dialysis — meaning the majority who lived did not regain their previous level of function.

Verberne et al., 2016 — American Journal of Kidney Diseases

In elderly patients with eGFR below 15 and high comorbidity burden, dialysis added approximately 1.4 years of median survival. However, conservative management preserved functional independence and time spent at home for a longer proportion of remaining life.

SELECT Data, 2022

Reinforced that the decision to initiate dialysis depends heavily on individual comorbidity burden — not just on GFR number. The kidney function lab value alone does not determine benefit.

Critical distinction

Conservative kidney management is not "doing nothing"

CKM is an active, structured medical program. It typically includes:

  • → Ongoing nephrology follow-up and monitoring
  • → Symptom management (fluid balance, anemia, fatigue, pain)
  • → Dietary support with a renal dietitian
  • → Fluid management and electrolyte monitoring
  • → Palliative care coordination and advance care planning
  • → Quality-of-life-centered decision-making at each stage

When dialysis does make a meaningful difference

Dialysis is not without benefit — context determines benefit

The research does not argue against dialysis. It argues for honest, individualized conversations. Dialysis is most clearly beneficial when:

  • 1 The patient is younger and otherwise in relatively good health (single-organ failure without significant comorbidity)
  • 2 The patient is a realistic transplant candidate and dialysis serves as a bridge to transplantation
  • 3 Kidney failure is acute or reversible, not end-stage progressive disease
  • 4 The patient has a clear understanding of what dialysis requires and has chosen it with full information

The consent problem

Most patients are not offered CKM as a formal option

The standard clinical conversation is typically structured around which type of dialysis — hemodialysis vs. peritoneal dialysis, home vs. center-based. The question of whether to initiate dialysis at all, including conservative management as a named alternative with an honest comparison of outcomes, is frequently absent from that conversation. This is not informed consent. You are entitled to ask explicitly: "What are my options, including the option of not starting dialysis?"

What patients are rarely told

You can stop — and approximately 1 in 5 dialysis patients do

What patients are typically told

"If you stop dialysis, you will die."

This is technically true. What it omits is everything that makes the choice meaningful.

What is also true

The right to stop dialysis is legally protected, ethically established, and exercised by roughly 20–25% of dialysis patients — approximately 1 in 5 dialysis deaths in the US is preceded by the patient's decision to stop treatment.

The other 4 in 5 die of: cardiovascular disease (~40–45%), infection and sepsis — most of it access-related (~10–12%), malignancy (~5–8%), and other causes. Dialysis is a direct contributing factor to most of these deaths: it accelerates cardiovascular disease through hemodynamic stress and vascular calcification; it is the source of most infections through catheter and graft bacteremia; and the uremic toxins it only partially clears create a chronic pro-inflammatory, pro-carcinogenic environment. The mortality is on dialysis, not simply despite it.

Scenario 1 — Acute dialysis, started as a bridge

Dialysis is sometimes started during an acute kidney injury — a sudden, potentially reversible drop in kidney function caused by illness, surgery, medication, or dehydration. In these cases dialysis is a bridge, not a permanent commitment. If the underlying cause resolves, dialysis can be stopped and the kidneys may partially or fully recover. Patients in this category are entitled to know from the beginning whether their situation is acute or chronic, and what the realistic probability of kidney recovery is. That distinction changes the entire informed consent conversation.

Scenario 2 — End-stage renal disease: the right to withdraw

For patients with true ESRD — permanent, irreversible kidney failure — stopping dialysis is a terminal decision. The legal and ethical right to make it is well established. It is not suicide. It is withdrawal of a life-sustaining treatment, a right that applies to any patient for any treatment under settled medical ethics and law.

According to USRDS data, approximately 21% of all deaths in dialysis patients are preceded by the patient's decision to stop treatment. This is one of the most common ways dialysis ends — and it is almost never named as an option in the initial informed consent process.

What stopping looks like — the clinical picture For a patient with no residual kidney function, death typically occurs within 7 to 14 days after dialysis is stopped — median approximately 8 to 10 days. Patients with some remaining kidney function may survive for several weeks. The causes of death are uremia (accumulation of waste products the kidneys can no longer clear) and hyperkalemia (dangerously elevated potassium affecting heart rhythm). Hospice and palliative care can manage the symptoms of this process: morphine for air hunger and dyspnea, anxiolytics for anxiety, symptom management for discomfort. Uremia itself, as it progresses, produces increasing drowsiness and confusion before unconsciousness — it is not typically a painful death when appropriately managed. This is information patients are entitled to have — not to be pushed toward stopping, but because the decision to continue dialysis indefinitely should be a genuine informed choice, not the only option that was ever fully explained.

The consent gap: Many patients report that they were never told stopping was an option. Some report being told that stopping "isn't allowed" or that "nothing can be done to make it comfortable." Neither is accurate. If you are considering stopping dialysis — or want to understand your options — you are entitled to a formal palliative care consultation, an honest conversation about prognosis with and without dialysis, and access to hospice evaluation if appropriate. You do not need your dialysis team's permission to pursue any of these.

USRDS — U.S. Renal Data System, Annual Reports

The explosion in dialysis

Americans receiving dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD), 1973–2022. In 1972, Congress passed the Social Security Amendments that created the Medicare ESRD benefit — making dialysis the only condition-specific Medicare entitlement, available to any American regardless of age or work history. The industry that followed grew accordingly.

Sources: USRDS 2023 Annual Data Report FTC & academic literature on dialysis market concentration Medicare ESRD history: Social Security Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-603

Questions you are entitled to ask

Before deciding

"What is my expected survival on dialysis versus conservative management, given my specific age and comorbidities?" Not a general statistic — your specific situation, including heart disease, diabetes, mobility, and functional status.

"How much of that additional time would I spend in a dialysis center versus at home?" Time in facility versus functional time at home is a quality-of-life question the data supports asking.

"What does a typical week look like on dialysis for someone with my health profile?" Not a general description — specific to your current functional status and trajectory.

"Am I a transplant candidate? What is the realistic wait time at this center?" If transplant is not realistic, the calculus for enduring years of dialysis changes significantly.

"What does conservative kidney management include, and who provides it?" You are entitled to this option explained clearly, not dismissed.

Ready to go deeper?

Fellowship opens the door to personal ministry support from Rev. Allie — applied to your specific path.

Enter into Fellowship