Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:59:34.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Moral Underpinning of the Proxy-Provider Relationship: Issues of Trust and Distrust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Bart J. Collopy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Despite clear legislative and judicial support, a well established ethical consensus, and increased efforts at information dissemination and education, proxy decision making for incapacitated patients continues to produce moral muddle and poor resolutions in end-of-life care.

In her analysis of the proxy-doctor relationship, Nancy Dubler spells out the institutionalized patterns that keep the promise of proxy directives so often unrealized. Facing medically complex care of an incapacitated patient, health care teams are apt to view the proxy as a potentially indecisive or unrealistically demanding decision-maker, less a stand-in for the patient than an interloper whose improper, misguided, or self-interested decisions will work against the patient's best interests. So perceived, proxies are routinely relegated to the edges of care planning discussions, left relatively uninformed and unconsulted, and then suddenly thrust center stage to face decisions they find overwhelming. Confronting such decisions, proxies need support and compassion. What they often find is isolation and distrust, a web of professional and institutional practices that trammel their efforts to understand and execute their role.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Spring 1999 , pp. 37 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1999

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

See Dubler, N.N., “The Doctor-Proxy Relationship: The Neglected Connection,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5 (1995): 289–306.Google Scholar
See SUPPORT Principal Investigators, “A Controlled Trial to Improve Outcomes for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Adults: The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT),” JAMA, 274 (1995): 1591–98; and Teno, J.M. et al., “Advance Directives for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: Effectiveness with the Patient Self-Determination Act and the SUPPORT Intervention,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45 (1997): 500–07.Google Scholar
See Teno, J.M. et al., “Do Advance Directives Provide Instructions that Direct Care?,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45 (1997): 508–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fins, J.J., “Advance Directives and SUPPORT,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 45 (1997): at 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Moskowitz, E.H. and Nelson, J.L., “The Best Laid Plans,” Hastings Center Report, 25, no. 6 (1995): S3–S6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Making Health Care Decisions (Washington, D.C.: President's Commission, 1982): at 159.Google Scholar
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “The Health Care Proxy and the Living Will,” N. Engl. J. Med., 324 (1991): at 1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Life-Sustaining Treatment: Making Decisions and Appointing a Health Care Agent (Albany: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, 1987): at 91–92.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A.E. and Brock, D.W., Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989): at 94–95.Google Scholar
Hardwig, J., “The Problem of Proxies with Interests of Their Own,” Journal of Clinical Ethics, 4 (1993): at 20.Google Scholar
See Powell, T., “Extubating Mrs. K: Psychological Aspects of Surrogate Decision Making,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 27 (1999): 81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Sabatino, C.P., “The Legal and Functional Status of the Medical Proxy: Suggestions for Statutory Reform,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 27 (1999): 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapp, M.B., Commentary, “Anxieties as a Legal Impediment to the Doctor-Proxy Relationship,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 27 (1999): 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York State Task Force, supra note 9, at 92.Google Scholar
See Baier, A.C., Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Id. at 196.Google Scholar
See Lagerspetz, O., “The Notion of Trust in Philosophical Psychology,” in Alanen, L. Heinamaa, S., and Walgren, T., eds., Commonality and Particularity in Ethics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997): 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Baier, A.C., “Response to Olli Lagerspetz,” in Alanen, Heinamaa, , and Walgren, supra note 18, at 118–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, A.C., “Trusting Ex-intimates,” in Graham, G. and LaFollette, H., eds., Person to Person (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989): at 27.Google Scholar
Gaylin, W. and Jennings, B., The Perversion of Autonomy (New York: Free Press, 1996); at 231.Google Scholar
High, D.M., “Families' Roles in Advance Directives,” Hastings Center Report, 24, no. 6 (1994): at S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J.L. and Nelson, H.L., “Guided by Intimates,” Hastings Center Report, 23, no. 5 (1993): 14–6; and Nelson, H.L. and Nelson, J.L., “Preferences and Other Moral Sources,” Hastings Center Report, 24, no. 6 (1994): S19–S21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Blustein, J., “The Family in Medical Decision-Making,” Hastings Center Report, 23, no. 3 (1993): 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Pellegrino, E.D. and Thomasma, D.C., The Virtues in Medical Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).Google Scholar