The Journal of clinical ethics
-
To adapt Churchill's comment on democracy, "No one pretends that [POLSTs are] perfect..." but physicians' orders about life-sustaining treatments are a very important supplement to advance directives, especially for patients who are extremely or terminally ill, and most particularly for patients who require emergency treatment by first responders or by physicians who do not know them as persons. The standardized orders of limited options, however, are no substitute for a detailed treatment directive of a patient with a known illness, with predictable trajectories and complications. And, in this latter circumstance, a thoroughly informed proxy may also assist physicians in selecting appropriate treatment for patients who have lost decisional capacity and/or the ability to express it. ⋯ In learning to talk to his patients, the doctor may talk himself back into loving his work. He has little to lose and everything to gain by letting the sick man into his heart. If he does, they can share--as few others can--the wonder, terror, and exultation of being on the edge of being"
-
We conducted an in-depth interview study of public guardians in three local jurisdictions in the state of Maryland to explore the decision-making process utilized by court-appointed public guardians making medical and EOL care decisions on behalf of their clients with dementia. Overall, public guardians appeared to make their decisions in the context of relevant ethical principles and relevant case law and state statute, and the basis upon which they made informed decisions was dependent on their training and experience. The stated goal of public guardians is to make decisions that they believe are in the best interest of their clients. ⋯ Some guardians sought the advice of this medical consultant only when faced with more complex decisions. Guardians challenged physicians' recommendations when they believed the physicians were recommending an intervention that was not in the best interest of the client--that is, they advocated against either overtreatment or undertreatment. Ultimately, guardians took particularly difficult issues to the court and obtained a judge's opinion.