Skip to main content

Consent, Advance Directives, and Decision by Proxies

Abstract

The ethical principle of autonomy, the right of a patient to determine what therapies or interventions to accept or decline, has wide support in modern medical ethics and is strongly buttressed legally. Accordingly, clinicians need to have a robust familiarity with the statutes governing their practice, notably in such realms as advance directives and proxy decision-making. Ethical challenges frequently arise in the context of emergency and critical care medicine in which time-sensitive or highly consequential decisions must be made when the patient’s decision-making capacity is impaired or subject to question. This chapter addresses these challenges and offers potential approaches and solutions.

Keywords

  • Self-determination
  • Patient autonomy
  • Informed consent
  • Advance directives
  • Power of attorney
  • Decision-making capacity
  • Ethical challenges

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-43127-3_4
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-43127-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 4.1

References

  1. Tonelli MR, Misak CJ. Compromised autonomy and the seriously ill patient. Chest. 2010;137:926–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. The elements of informed consent. In: Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 124–5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Appelbaum PS. Clinical practice. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1834–40.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Tunzi M. Can the patient decide? Evaluating patient capacity in practice. Am Fam Physician. 2001;64:299–306.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stuart RB, Thielke S. Protocol for the assessment of patient capacity to make end-of-life treatment decisions. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19:106–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE). Joint Centre for Bioethics University of Toronto Canada. http://www.jcb.utoronto.ca/tools/document/ace.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2019.

  7. Bertrand PM, Pereira B, Adda M, et al. Disagreement between clinicians and score in decision-making capacity of critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:337–44.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Grignoli N, Di Bernardo V, Malacrida R. New perspectives on substituted relational autonomy for shared decision-making in critical care. Crit Care. 2018;22:260.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Advance directive—compassion in dying. 2019. www.compassionindying.org.uk. Accessed 25 May 2019.

  10. Advance Directives. National Institute of health USA National Library of Medicine. https://medlineplus.gov/advancedirectives.html. Accessed 28 May 2019.

  11. Abbott J. The POLST paradox: opportunities and challenges in honoring patient end-of-life wishes in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;73:294–301.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. POLST. National POLST paragim USA. http://www.polst.org. Accessed 28 May 2019.

  13. Rietjens JAC, Sudore RL, Connolly M, et al. Definition and recommendations for advance care planning: an international consensus supported by the European association for palliative care. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:e543–e51.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Hartog CS, Peschel I, Schwarzkopf D, et al. Are written advance directives helpful to guide end-of-life therapy in the intensive care unit? A retrospective matched-cohort study. J Crit Care. 2014;29:128–33.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Leder N, Schwarzkopf D, Reinhart K, et al. The validity of advance directives in acute situations. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:723–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wiesing U, Jox RJ, Hessler HJ, et al. A new law on advance directives in Germany. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:779–83.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Ciliberti R, Gorini I, Gazzaniga V, et al. The Italian law on informed consent and advance directives: new rules of conduct for the autonomy of doctors and patients in end-of-life care. J Crit Care. 2018;48:178–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Baumann A, Audibert G, Claudot F, et al. Ethics review: end of life legislation—the French model. Crit Care. 2009;13:204.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Mentzelopoulos SD, Slowther AM, Fritz Z, et al. Ethical challenges in resuscitation. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:703–16.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaufman EJ, Richmond TS, Wiebe DJ, et al. Patient experiences of trauma resuscitation. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:843–50.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Schenker Y, Meisel A. Informed consent in clinical care: practical considerations in the effort to achieve ethical goals. JAMA. 2011;305:1130–1.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Schenker Y, Fernandez A, Sudore R, et al. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: a systematic review. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31:151–73.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Series L. Relationships, autonomy and legal capacity: mental capacity and support paradigms. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015;40:80–91.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Courtwright A, Rubin E. Who should decide for the unrepresented? Bioethics. 2016;30:173–80.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Connor DM, Elkin GD, Lee K, et al. The unbefriended patient: an exercise in ethical clinical reasoning. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:128–32.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Fagerlin A, Schneider CE. Enough. The failure of the living will. Hast Cent Rep. 2004;34:30–42.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown SM. Whose advance directives are they, after all? Lancet Respir Med. 2017;5:464–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Miller DG, Dresser R, Kim SYH. Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications. J Med Ethics. 2019;45:84–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Robertsen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Robertsen, A., Jöbges, S., Sadovnikoff, N. (2020). Consent, Advance Directives, and Decision by Proxies. In: Michalsen, A., Sadovnikoff, N. (eds) Compelling Ethical Challenges in Critical Care and Emergency Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43127-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43127-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43126-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43127-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)