Ethical and Legal Considerations in the Management of an Unbefriended Patient in a Vegetative State
- 551 Downloads
Patients without surrogates are referred to as “unbefriended.” Because these patients do not have representatives to assist with medical decision-making, patient autonomy and self-determination, fundamental concepts of American healthcare, are jeopardized.
We present a case of an unbefriended patient in a vegetative state and discuss the ethical and legal complications associated with management of unbefriended patients.
An unbefriended patient was admitted to our hospital with a cardiac arrest in the setting of an intracerebral hemorrhage. Despite aggressive medical and surgical management, he suffered significant brain injury and was in a vegetative state. In our state, unless an unbefriended patient will imminently die despite medical therapy, all measures must be taken to prolong the patient’s life, so a tracheostomy and feeding tube were placed and he was transferred to a long-term care facility. The process for making decisions on behalf of unbefriended patients is complicated and varies throughout the country. Some potential ways to avoid these complex situations include: early conversations about treatment wishes while patients have capacity, mandatory advance directives, and increased training and reimbursement for physicians to proactively have end-of-life discussions.
The unbefriended are one of the most high-risk patient groups. Because our patient had no surrogate with whom we could have a goals-of-care discussion, we were obligated to continue aggressive management despite knowing it would prolong, but not improve, his life. Proactive preventative measures to identify and document end-of-life wishes may make management of these patients less ethically and legally complicated.
KeywordsUnbefriended End-of-life Ethics Medicolegal Vegetative state Goals-of-care
The authors did not receive any funding for this manuscript.
Alexandra Lloyd-Smith Sequeira was responsible for conception and design, drafting the manuscript, and final approval of the manuscript. Ariane Lewis was responsible for conception and design, supervision, critical revision of the manuscript, and final approval of the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.
- 1.Pope TM. Unbefriended and unrepresented: better medical decision making for incapacitated patients without healthcare surrogates. Georg State Univ Law Rev (ahead print).Google Scholar
- 2.Karp N, Wood E. Incapacitated and alone: health care decision-making for the unbefriended. USA: American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging; 2003.Google Scholar
- 7.Varughese BM, Wilson R, Zisfein J, et al. Ethics and clinical practice guided by the family health care decisions act. Health Law J. 2011;16:75–82.Google Scholar
- 8.NY Pub Health Code § 2994-g(5).Google Scholar
- 11.Pope TM, Sellers T. Legal briefing: the unbefriended: making healthcare decisions for patients without surrogates (part 1). J Clin Ethics. 2012;1:84–96.Google Scholar
- 13.The Hastings Center. Guidelines on the termination of life-sustaining treatment an the care of the dying. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
- 16.Kapp MB. Surrogate decision-making for the unbefriended: social and ethical problem, legal solution? J Ethics Law Aging. 1995;1:83–5.Google Scholar
- 18.Coleman CH, Petruzzelli M. Decision-making for residents without surrogates. In: Mezey MD, Dubler NN, editors. Voices decis nurs homes respect resid prefer end-of-life care. New York: United Hospital Fund of New York; 2001.Google Scholar
- 21.Posner JB, Saper CB, Schiff ND, Plum F. Plum and Posner’s diagnosis of stupor and coma. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar