Two papers in this issue address the limits of surrogates’ authority when making life-and-death decisions for dying family members or friends. Using palliative sedation as an example, Jeffrey Berger offers a conceptual argument for bounding surrogate authority. Since freedom from pain is an essential interest, when imminently dying, cognitively incapacitated patients are in duress and their symptoms are not manageable in any other way, clinicians should be free to offer palliative sedation without surrogate consent, although assent should be sought and (...) every effort made to work with surrogates as harmoniously as possible. Ellen Robinson and her colleagues report on the implementation of a policy at Massachusetts General Hospital that supports do-not-resuscitate orders when cardiopulmonary resuscitation is likely to be ineffective or harmful, even if surrogates disagree. The “Doing No Harm” policy at MGH allows for what MGH calls a “medically indicated DNR” and what in some other places is called “a unilateral DNR”—the writing of an order not to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation, regardless of surrogate disapproval. These kinds of DNR policies have emerged in some hospitals across the country and for much the same reason that Berger provides in his argument regarding palliative sedation. I support the reasoning and the policies in both the Berger and Robinson papers. However, as the authors would most likely agree, the problems they aim to remedy are not simply about the scope of surrogate and professional authority. They are also symptoms of inattention to professional obligations and system failures. (shrink)

In this article I will argue that futile medical and nursing care is not only inefficacious but that it may be harmful to the patient and also to health professionals, who may be diminished both as clinicians and as persons if they are not able to give appropriate care to dying patients and their families. I discuss futile care in intensive care units because the opportunities and the temptation to provide futile care in these settings is higher than, for instance, (...) in internal medicine and nursing home care. I argue, following two nurse ethicists, Carol Taylor and Colleen Scanlon, that, even if nurses are not the initiators of futile care, they play an important role in its prevention because of their clinical expertise. They can do this by convening ‘patient care conferences’ when they recognize the need to bring together the various parties that have conflicting expectations. These conferences would then result in appropriate palliative care. The nurses providing this care would demonstrate their understanding of the process whereby living becomes the process of dying. (shrink)