In the United States, patient autonomy is generally considered the most important ethical principle; however, patients sometimes make decisions that are medically futile or in conflict with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Difficult issues are often compounded if the patient loses capacity and a surrogate must provide substituted judgments. Allowing autonomy free reign can sometimes be detrimental to patient care and contribute to family distress. Here, we describe the case of a terminally ill patient whose conflicting desires were to have “everything” done—including cardiopulmonary resuscitation—and to simultaneously avoid hospitalization and die peacefully at home.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LuceJM, AlpersA. End-of-life care: What do the American courts say?Crit Care Med, 2001; 29:40–45.
Cobbs v. Grant, 8Cal. 3d 229, 104 Cal. Rptr. 505, 502 (Cal 1972).
4.
BurtonCZ, TwamleyEW, LeeLCet al.Undetected cognitive impairment and decision-making capacity in patients receiving hospice care. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2012; 20:306–316.
5.
PopeTM. Legal fundamentals of surrogate decision making. Chest, 2012; 141:1074–1081.
6.
ShalowitzDI, Garrett-MayerE, WendlerD. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Arch Intern Med, 2006; 166:493–497.
7.
SulmasyDP, HallerK, TerryPB. More talk, less paper: Predicting the accuracy of substituted judgments. Am J Med, 1994; 96:432–438.
8.
KnopsKM, SrinivasanM, MeyersFJ. Patient desires: A model for assessment of patient preferences for care of severe or terminal illness. Palliat Support Care, 2005; 3:289–299.
9.
Barber v. Superior Court, 147Cal. App. 3d 1006, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (Cal 1983).
10.
LuceJM, AlpersA. Legal aspects of withholding life support from critically ill patients in the United States and providing palliative care to them. Am J Resp Crit Care Med, 2000; 162:2029–2032.
11.
MoormanSM, HauserRM. Do older adults know their spouses' end-of-life treatment preferences?Res Aging, 2009; 31,4:463–491.
12.
DittoPH, DanksJH, SmuckerWDet al.Advance directives as acts of communication: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med, 2001; 161:421–430.
13.
Gilgunn v. Massachusetts General HospitalNo. 92-4820 (Mass. Super. Ct. Apr. 22, 1995.
14.
In re. BabyK16F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994).
15.
WilkinsonDJ, SavulescuJ. Knowing when to stop: Futility in the ICU. Curr Opin Anesthesiol, 2011; 24:160–165.
16.
DitilloBA. Should there be a choice for cardiopulmonary resuscitation when death is expected? Revisiting an old idea whose time is yet to come. J Palliat Med, 2002; 5:107–116.
17.
BedellSE, DelbancoTL, CookEF, EpsteinFM. Survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. N Engl J Med, 1983; 309:569–576.
18.
DeBardML. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Analysis of six years' experience and review of the literature. Ann Emerg Med, 1981; 10,8:408–416.
19.
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association: Guidelines for the appropriate use of do-not-resuscitate orders. JAMA, 1991; 265,14:1868–1871.
20.
GinnD, ZitnerD. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation not for terminally ill patients. Can Fam Physician, 1995; 41:649–657.
21.
MossAH. Informing the patient about cardiopulmonary resuscitation: When the risks outweigh the benefits. J Gen Intern Med, 1989; 4:349–355.
22.
BrueraE, HuiD. Integrating palliative and supportive care in the trajectory of cancer: Establishing goals and models of care. J Clin Oncol, 2010; 28:4013–4017.
23.
YennurajalingamS, DevR, LockeyMet al.Characteristics of family conferences in a palliative care unit at a comprehensive cancer center. J Palliat Med, 2008; 11,9:1208–1211.
24.
BlindermanCD, KrakauerEL, SolomonMZ. Time to revise the approach to determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation. JAMA, 2012; 307,9:917–918.
