Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:47:06.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Limits of Proxy Decision Making: Overtreatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Terri R. Fried  and
Muriel R. Gillick
Terri R. Fried
Affiliation:
Assistant Physician in the Division of Geriatrics, Rhode Island Hospital, and Assistant Professor, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.
Muriel R. Gillick
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Associate Director of the Harvard Geriatric Fellowship Program, Boston.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Traditionally, surrogates have been involved principally in making decisions about life-sustaining treatment for incompetent individuals. Today, surrogates are increasingly called upon to make everyday medical decisions for patients who are incompetent because they are demented. Some of the potential perils of proxy decision making under these circumstances have been identified, including the lack of concordance between patients and their proxies, demands by proxies for technically futile therapy, and actual abuse of patients. We found a significant number of cases in which healthcare providers at a long-term care facility came into conflict with surrogates because the treatment desired by the surrogate was viewed as excessively burdensome when evaluated by an experienced team of nurses, physicians, and social workers. Neither a court-appointed guardian nor an Institutional ethics committee were likely to be able to resolve these conflicts because of lack of clarity about what constitutes the best Interest of Impaired nursing home patients. The following case illustrates this increasingly common conflict.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 524 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Notes

1. Menikoff, JA, Sachs, GA, Siegler, M. Beyond advance directives—health care surrogate laws. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;327:1165–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Cogen, R, Patterson, B, Chavin, S, Cogen, J, Landsberg, L, Posner, J. Surrogate decision-maker preferences for medical care of severely demented nursing home patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 1992;152:1885–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Uhlmann, RF, Pearlman, RA, Cain, KC. Physicians' and spouses' predictions of elderly patients' resuscitation preferences. Journal of Gerontology 1988;43:M115–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Ouslander, JG, Tymchuk, AJ, Rahbar, B, Health care decisions among elderly long-term care residents and their potential proxies. Archives of Internal Medicine 1989;149:1367–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Seckler, AB, Meier, DE, Mulvihill, M, Cammer, Paris BE. Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions? Annals of Internal Medicine 1991;115:92–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Paris, JJ, Crone, RK, Reardon, F. Physicians' refusal of requested treatment: the case of Baby L. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322:1012–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Paris, JJ, Schreiber, MD, Statter, M, Arensman, R, Siegler, M. Beyond autonomy–physicians' refusal to use life-prolonging extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. New England Journal of Medicine 1993;329:354–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Lee, MA, Berry, K. Abuse of durable power of attorney for health care: case report. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1991;39:806–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Buchanan, AE, Brock, DW. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

10. Emanuel, LL, Barry, MJ, Stoeckle, JD, Ettelson, LM, Emanuel, EJ. Advance directives for medical care–a case for greater use. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;324:889–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Arras, JD. The severely demented, minimally functional patient: an ethical analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41:25–30.Google Scholar

12. Lo, B. Caring for incompetent patients: is there a physician on the case? Law, Medicine & Health Care 1989;17:214–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Dresser, R, Robertson, JA. Quality of life and non-treatment decisions for incompetent patients: a critique of the orthodox approach. Law, Medicine & Health Care 1989;17:234–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. Fried, TR, Stein, MD, O'Sullivan, P, Brock, DW, Novack, DH. Limits of patients autonomy: physician attitudes and practices regarding life-sustaining treatment and euthanasia. Archives of Internal Medicine 1993;153:722–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. Ouslander, JG, Osterweil, D, Morley, J. Medical Care in the Nursing Home. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar

16. See note 3. Uhlmann, , Pearlman, , Cain, . 1988:115–21.Google Scholar

17. See note 2. Cogen, et al. 1992:1885–8.Google Scholar

18. See note 7. Paris, et al. 1993:354–7.Google Scholar

19. Sonnenblick, M, Friedlander, Y, Steinberg, A. Dissociation between the wishes of terminally ill parents and decisions by their offspring. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41:599–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. Gillick, MR, Fried, TR. The limits of proxy decision making; undertreatment. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1995;4(2).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed