Skip to main content

Surrogate Decision-Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychiatric Ethics in Late-Life Patients
  • 465 Accesses

Abstract

Loss of decision-making capacity can pose challenges for individuals, their families, and clinicians. Absence of advance directives and knowledge of patient’s treatment preferences can make health care delivery challenging, especially in complex medical situations that demand critical decision-making. Surrogate decision-making, wherein a substitute decision-maker is appointed to make decisions on the individual’s behalf when they are not able to do so, is helpful in such situations. Over the years, the concept of surrogate decision-making has evolved and is now a legal process with each state entitled to formulate its own surrogacy laws. This chapter covers the standards of surrogate decision-making, state-specific laws in the United States and their variability, applicability and limitations, status of non-traditional surrogates, and issues concerning the unbefriended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. https://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf. Accessed 17 Nov 2018.

  2. Yadav KN, Gabler NB. Approximately one in three US adults completes any type of advance directive for end-of-life care. Health Aff. 2017;36(7):1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Del. Code. Ann., tit. 16 § 2507(b)(2)(e); Ga. Code Ann. § 31-9-2(a)(6)(E); 755 Ill. Comp. Stat. 40/25(a)(6); Me. Rev. Stat., tit. 18A§ 5-805(b)(5); Pa. Stat. Ann., tit. 20 § 5461(d)(1)(v); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-66-30(A)(6); S.D. Codified Laws § 34-12C-3(5); Utah Code Ann.§ 75-2a-108(1)(b)(ii)(D);Wis. Stat. Ann. § 50.06(3)(f); Wyo. Stat. §35-22-406(b)(vi).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Del. Code. Ann., tit. 16 § 2507(b)(2)(f); Ga. Code Ann. § 31-9-2(a)(6)(F); Me. Rev. Stat., tit. 18A § 5-805(b)(6); S.D. Codified Laws § 34-12C-3(6).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ga. Code Ann. § 31-9-2(a)(6)(F); Me. Rev. Stat., tit. 18A §5-805(b)(7); S.D. Codified Laws § 34-12C-3(6).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ga. Code Ann. § 31-9-2(a)(6)(D); N.M. Stat. Ann. §24-7A-5(B)(6); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-66-30(A)(6); S.D. Codified Laws § 34-12C-3(5); Utah Code Ann. § 75-2a-108(1)(b)(ii)(F); Wis.Stat. Ann. § 50.06(3)(e); Wyo. Stat. § 35-22-406(b)(iv).

    Google Scholar 

  7. S.D. Codified Laws § 34-12C-3(6).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Del. Code § 2507(b)(9).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Maryland Code, Health-Gen. § 5-605(b).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-1806(c).

    Google Scholar 

  11. W. Va. Code, § 16-30-8(b).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-1806(c)(3).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hawaii Rev. Stat. §572-C-.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15-18.5-103(3).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alaska Stat. § 47.24.016(a)(6); Ark. Rev. Stat. § 36-3231(A)(6); Del. Code Ann., tit. 16 § 2507(b)(3); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 765.401(1)(g); W. Va. Code § 16-30-8(a)(6).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Castillo LS, Williams BA, Hooper SM, Sabatino CP, Weithorn LA, Sudore RL. Lost in translation: the unintended consequences of advance directive law on clinical care. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(2):121–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Karp N, Wood E. Incapacitated and alone: medical decision-making for the unbefriended elderly. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cal. prob. code § 3208 (west 2016); Fla. prob. rule 5.900 (2017); O.C.G.A § 31-36a-7 (2016) (placement only); Ind. code § 16-36-1-8 (2016); N.J ct. rule 4:86-12 (2016) (special medical guardian); S.D. codified laws. § 34-12c-4 (2016); VA code ann. § 37.2-1101(b) (west2016), amended by s.b. 371, 2012 gen. assemb., reg. sess. (va. 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Farrell TW, Widera E, Rosenberg L, Rubin CD, Naik AD, Braun U, et al. AGS position statement: making medical treatment decisions for unbefriended older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65:14–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Meisel A, Cerminara KL. The right to die: the law of end-of-life decision making. 3rd ed. New York: Aspen Publishers; 2004. p. 4.02(B)–3(B).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bailey S. Decision making in health care: limitations of the substituted judgment principle. Nurs Ethics. 2002;9(5):483–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dresser R. Precommitment: a misguided strategy for securing death with dignity. Tex Law Rev. 2003;81(7):1823–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Welie JV. Living wills and substituted judgments: a critical analysis. Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4(2):169–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Danis M, Garrett J, Harris R, Patrick DL. Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(7):567–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Weissman JS, Haas JS, Fowler FJ Jr, et al. The stability of preferences for life-sustaining care among persons with AIDS in the Boston Health Study. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(1):16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(5):493–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fagerlin A, Ditto PH, Danks JH, Houts RM. Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychol. 2001;20(3):166–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hickman RL Jr, Pignatiello GA, Tahir S. Evaluation of the decisional fatigue scale among surrogate decision makers of the critically ill. West J Nurs Res. 2018;40(2):191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kopelman LM. The best interests standard for incompetent or incapacitated persons of all ages. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35:187–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vladeck BC, Westphal E. Dignity-driven decision making: a compelling strategy for improving care for people with advanced illness. Health Aff. 2012;31(6):1269–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. DC Code § 21-2210.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ala. Code § 22-8A-11(a)(2); Del. Code. tit. 16 § 2507(b)(6); Iowa Code Ann. § 144A.7(1); Me. Rev.Stat. tit. 18-A § 5-805(a); Mont. Code Ann. § 50-9-106(1)(a); Nev.Rev. Stat. § 449.626(1)(a); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-322(a)(1a); Ohio Rev.Code § 2133.08(D)(2).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2133.09.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Seiger CE, Arnold JF, Ahronheim JC. Refusing artificial and hydration: does statutory law send the wrong message? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(3):544–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romika Dhar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dhar, R., Gupta, A. (2019). Surrogate Decision-Making. In: Balasubramaniam, M., Gupta, A., Tampi, R. (eds) Psychiatric Ethics in Late-Life Patients. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15172-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15172-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15171-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15172-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics