Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T10:03:15.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 13 - Surrogate Decision Making

from Section 2 - Consultation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

By
Thomas V. Cunningham
Edited by
D. Micah Hester  and
Toby L. Schonfeld
D. Micah Hester
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine
Toby L. Schonfeld
Affiliation:
National Center for Ethics in Health Care, US Department of Veterans Affairs
Get access

Summary

Mrs. McGuire’s situation is common. Estimates suggest about 40% of adult hospitalized patients and residential hospice patients lack decisional capacity, necessitating that someone be identified to make medical decisions for them (DeMartino et al., 2017). Choosing the right person for this job can be complicated. Healthcare providers (HCPs) will know what therapies or interventions may be possible for a given condition but are unlikely to know what the patient would choose based on their values, goals, and priorities. And in a case like Mrs. McGuire’s, where there are multiple adult children variously involved in her care, it is also difficult to know whom to ask to get this information. This compounding of uncertainty – what the patient would choose and who should make decisions when they cannot – serves as the foundation for the concept of norms governing surrogate decision-making.

Type
Chapter
Information
Guidance for Healthcare Ethics Committees , pp. 113 - 120
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

American Society for Bioethics and Humanities [ASBH], Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Committee. (2017). Addressing Patient-Centered Ethical Issues in Health Care: A Case-Based Study Guide. Chicago: ASBH.Google Scholar
Buchanan, AE, Brock, DW (1989). Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, TV, Chatburn, A, Coleman, C, et al. (2019). Comprehensive quality assessment in clinical ethics. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 30(3): 284–296.Google Scholar
Davidson, JE, Aslakson, RA, Long, AC, et al. (2017). Guidelines for family-centered care in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 45(1): 103–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeMartino, ES, Dudzinkski, D, Doyle, CK, et al. (2017). Who decides when a patient can’t? Statutes on alternate decision makers. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(15): 1478–1482.Google Scholar
Harris, KW, Cunningham, TV, Hester, DM, et al. (2020, November). Comparison is not a zero-sum game: Exploring advanced measures of healthcare ethics consultation. AJOB Empirical Bioethics E-pub.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homan, ME (2018). Factors associated with the timing and patient outcomes of clinical ethics consultation in a Catholic health care system. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 18(1): 71–92.Google Scholar
Kon, AA, Davidson, JE, Morrison, W, Danis, M, White, DB. (2016). Shared decision making in intensive care units: An American college of critical care medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Critical Care Medicine, 44(1): 188–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pope, TM, Bennett, J, Carson, SS, et al. (2020). Making medical treatment decisions for unrepresented patients in the ICU: An official American Thoracic Society/American Geriatrics Society policy statement. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 201(10): 1182–1192.Google Scholar
Shalowitz, DI, Garrett-Mayer, E, Wendler, D. (2006). The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(5): 493–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welch, LC, Teno, JM, Mor, V (2005). End-of-life care in black and white: Race matters for medical care of dying patients and their families. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(7): 1145–1153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wendler, D, Rid, A (2011). Systematic review: The effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Annals of Internal Medicine, 154(5): 336–346.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×