Incapacitated and surrogateless patients are an ever-growing trend in the world of health care. Although the extent of the issue is unknown, 1 out 20 deaths in the intensive care unit (ICU) occurre...

There has been increasing awareness of the medical and moral challenges in the care of unrepresented patients: those who cannot make their own medical decisions, do not have any surrogate decision maker, and have not indicated their treatment preferences. Most discussions have focused on procedural questions such as who should make decisions for these patients. An issue that has not gotten enough attention is the ethical standard that should govern medical decision making. I explore the question of which ethical standard (...) provides better justification for end-of-life decisions for unrepresented patients. Two options are considered: the conventional and less demanding best interest standard, and the novel and more demanding medical futility standard. I explain the similarities and differences between these two standards, examine arguments for and against each one, and suggest that the medical futility standard is ethically superior and should replace the established best interest standard. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 43-45, October 2012.

To date no one has identified or described the population of incapacitated patients being treated in an inpatient setting who lack proxy decision-makers. Nor, despite repeated calls for protocols to be developed for decision-making, has any institution reported on the utilization of such a protocol. In 2005, our urban tertiary care hospital instituted a protocol utilizing community members of the ethics committee to meet with the medical providers and engage in shared decision-making for patients without proxies. We conducted a retrospective (...) chart review and in this paper describe nearly 200 patients who were identified and treated according to the protocol over a 12 year period. After an aggressive search, family members were located for a surprising number of patients, leaving 80 patients who needed decisions to be made utilizing the PWP committee. We review the decisions required, the results of the shared decision-making meetings, and the patient outcomes. Our experience has shown that a protocol involving community volunteers to make decisions for PWPs in a timely manner is feasible and ethically defensible. The protocol has been accepted by physicians and utilized with increasing frequency. Because it was possible to gather at least minimal information on most patients, a standard of “informed best interest” was used to make decisions. PWP committee recommendations varied, but in all cases agreement was reached with the attending physicians. (shrink)

Unrepresented patients are individuals who lack decision makingcapacity and have no family or friends to make medical decisions for them. This population is growing in number in the United States, particularly within emergency and intensive care settings. While some bioethical discussion has taken place in response to the question of who ought to make decisions for these patients, the issue of how surrogate medical decisions ought to be made for this population remains unexplored. In this paper, we argue that standard (...) applications of surrogate decision making principles in health care are not well suited to many unrepresented patients with long-term mental health diagnosis. We argue that when applied to this population, the substituted judgment standard, designed to preserve patient preferences and values, may lead to the exclusion of their preferences. We argue further that the application of the best interest standard runs the risk of leading to harmful cases of overtreatment or undertreatment. We offer an alternative interpretation of the best interest principle that is better able to promote the well-being of unrepresented patients, especially for those who lack capacity because of mental disorders. This alternative is based on the practices and principles of harm reduction and includes three components: emphasis on considering the expressed preferences of unrepresented patients, a focus on reducing harm as well as the delivery of clinical benefits, and a recognition of the importance of promoting trust. (shrink)