The most award winning
healthcare information source.
TRUSTED FOR FOUR DECADES.
Legality and ethics can create misperceptions
Ethics needs to be balanced with the law
Although most patient care scenarios can be worked out through careful communication with all those involved, there are certain situations where even greater diplomacy may be required on the part of ethics consultants.
One situation in particular where this is often the case relates to advance directives and the selected surrogate decision-maker, who makes decisions for the patient when he or she is incapable of making decisions for himself or herself, according to Nancy M.P. King, JD, professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, and co-director, WFU Center for Bioethics, Health, and Society in Winston-Salem, NC.
"Take, for example, the situation where someone has an advance directive and/or a surrogate decision maker, and together, either the advance directive or the surrogate decision maker, or both, say, 'Action X is the best action for this patient under these circumstances.' And the family comes in and says, 'Don't you dare do that. We think Y is the best thing,'" says King, noting that this type of situation occurs regularly. "Cousin Fran may be upset that she wasn't chosen. It may be that the patient has a very different view of the decision-making process than the family, who doesn't feel like they're ready to let the patient go."
And this is where the scenario becomes complex. For example, someone on the team caring for the patient may think that the best way not to get sued is to follow the family members' wishes. Somebody on the team might maintain that if what the family wants is for the patient to be kept alive as long as possible, that's what should be done, because there's "very little case law saying that somebody who fails to honor an advance directive and keeps the patient alive longer has actually done cognizable harm to a patient that can be effectuated through a lawsuit," says King.
Will you go against advance directive?
In a hypothetical situation, King says that a team member who wants to avoid being sued might wish to choose care that is counter to what is in the advance directive, noting that "nobody's ever going to bring that lawsuit, and they may not sue, because the patient was kept alive and because it's very difficult to bring lawsuits like that."
That would be the wrong decision to make, according to King. "This is . . . a situation where somebody is really expecting that it is really possible to keep everything quiet by doing something that's morally wrong," King says. These kinds of situations may cause the belief that law and ethics are incompatible, when in reality they are not, she says.
In that type of situation, the advance directive should be honored, King says. "But, in fact, the right way to proceed with a situation like that isn't to say, 'Hey, law is on our side, as well as ethics,' but to sit down with the family and really, again, take that initial time," she says. "One of the reasons why it's easy to . . . try to take mental shortcuts and say there's an incompatibility here is that the best way to address perceived incompatibilities like that is very time-consuming and involves some very difficult conversations." King notes that "there's a lot of hard work that needs to be done."
Pediatric informed consent
All those interviewed suggested that it is very important for ethics consultants to be aware of the laws, particularly those within their state, which may constrain their recommendations to patients or their families.
Alexander A. Kon, MD, CM, FAAP, FCCM, who is, among other appointments, director, clinical bioethics consultation service and chair, bioethics consultation committee at UC Davis Medical Center, as well as director of bioethics, Clinical and Translational Science Center at the University of California, Davis, says, "Clinicians need to know what are the legal constraints that they really need to talk to legal counsel about to understand ... and then they need to understand what are the ethical concerns, and that's where the ethics consultants can frequently be very helpful." The recommendations from the two might be different, Kon says. "In general, the law and ethics go hand-in-hand, but that's not always the case," he says.
One of those examples is physician-assisted dying. Physician-assisted dying is now legal in three states: Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
Paula Goodman-Crews, MSW, LCSW, bioethics director in San Diego with Kaiser Permanente and regional bioethics director of the Southern California Region, says, "Now, from an ethical standpoint, that may not really comport with one's own values or viewpoints, or it might."
Consider the example of a person who lives in California and want a physician to give him or her a lethal dose, Goodman-Crews says. "While we may think we should be able to do that and that's the right thing to do, in California, it happens to be illegal," she says.
While she notes that the fact that it is illegal ends the legal portion of the discussion, "... this gets into really kind of frightening territory, where there are physicians, especially, I would say, hospice physicians, who almost on a daily or weekly basis are probably approached by patients or family members asking, 'Please, can you do something?'"
While the physician has to respond to the patient's request by saying that this action on his or her part would be illegal, that physician might not be aware that one practice that some patients follow is to stockpile pain medications to bring about their own death. While physicians might, in fact, prescribe pain medication with the intention of reducing suffering, they cannot prescribe a lethal dose. So, should that be considered patient autonomy?
"I guess it could be considered an act of autonomy, but what happens when the law prohibits [this]?" Goodman-Crews says. "One might say the final act of autonomy is the taking of one's life. But the law prohibits you from doing that" with a physician's assistance, she says.
If a hospice patient were to choose to overdose, the legal framework would dictate that the police be sent to the residence or site of death, where it would then be determined if this is a coroner's case. If it is determined to be a case for the coroner's office, the police might be suspicious that there was foul play involved in the overdose of the patient. "Now, most of these patients are in a setting where they are dying or have grave disability, [but] they are really cases that are looked at case-by-case by the coroner's office," Goodman-Crews explains.
While she says she isn't sure how common this is, it is common enough such that Kaiser has had ethics cases centered around failed suicide attempts in such circumstances, i.e., where a patient tried unsuccessfully to end his or her own life. If that patient already has a do-not-resuscitate order (DNR), then that means don't put the patient on life support. "But let's say they're coming in with an assisted suicide attempt; then it gets really confusing . . . so you have competing ethical obligations," Goodman-Crews says. "So, what are those obligations? Well, if a patient comes in with an attempted suicide, are we obligated to continue to respect their autonomy, in which case we might be aiding or helping the patient complete the attempt of suicide?"
In other words, if a patient has a DNR order, "is it ethically defensible to override their autonomy by treatment [or] is it ethically required?" she says.
For more information on ethical issues, contact:
Paula Goodman-Crews, MSW, LCSW, Bioethics Director, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego and Southern California Region. E-mail: Paula.Goodman-Crews@kp.org.
Nancy M.P. King, JD, Professor, Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Co-director, WFU Center for Bioethics, Health, and Society in Winston-Salem, NC. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.