Topics in Palliative Medicine
Articles from the medical literature are digested, abstracted, and discussed by our AI hosts, with topics in symptom management, diagnosis, ethics and others.
Topics in Palliative Medicine
020 - The Surrogate vs the Advance Care Plan
Questions? Comments? Send us a message!
This episode presents an "Ethics Roundtable" discussion, focusing on the complex case of a 68-year-old female veteran, LK, whose advanced directive conflicts with her family's wishes regarding life-sustaining treatment. The source explores this ethical dilemma from multiple professional viewpoints, including a trauma surgeon, ethicist, spiritual care provider, physician, lawyer, and social worker. Each perspective offers insights into the challenges of honoring patient autonomy when a designated surrogate is deemed unsuitable and family members disagree with the patient's explicit end-of-life instructions. The central theme revolves around the legal and moral obligations to uphold a patient's advanced directive, especially when a surrogate's cognitive impairment or emotional distress prevents them from making decisions aligned with the patient's stated wishes.
keywords: autonomy, advance directive, surrogate decision making, substituted judgement
Thank you for your interest in Ethics in Palliative Medicine! Follow us at https://epionepalliative.com and on X: @PallCareEthics
You're listening to Topics in Palliative Medicine, a podcast dedicated to increasing knowledge of the literature in palliative care. Welcome to the Deep Dive, where we unpack complex topics, arm ourselves with expert analysis, and distill the most important insights for you, offering a shortcut to being truly well-informed. Today, we're plunging into a profoundly challenging ethical dilemma. It really highlights the crucial intersection of patient autonomy, family wishes, and, well, the intricate legal framework of end-of-life care. Our source material for this Deep Dive is a fascinating ethics roundtable paper. It dissects a real-world case, offering illuminating perspectives from multiple healthcare and legal experts.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, and what's so fascinating here is how just one patient's story can light up so many layers. Medical ethics, decision-making, the responsibilities of everyone involved, it's all there. Our mission today is really to pull out the most important nuggets of knowledge from this case. We want to help you understand not just what happened, but maybe more importantly, why it matters, and how these incredibly complex situations get navigated Okay,
SPEAKER_01:let's set the scene. Imagine this. We're looking at the case of LK, a 68-year-old female veteran. She arrives at a VA medical center after a fall. She's critically ill, her body just ravaged by severe injuries, a comminuted cervical odontoid fracture, a sternal fracture, multiple rib fractures. I mean, for an elderly patient, especially someone described as frail.
SPEAKER_00:Right. These aren't just injuries. They represent a catastrophic decline. It pushed her to the very edge. leading to rapid unresponsiveness and emergent intubation.
SPEAKER_01:But here's the crucial detail, the part that really ignites this profound ethical firestorm. LK had a crystal clear advance directive on file. It explicitly stated she did not want life-sustaining treatments. Things like artificial nutrition, artificial hydration, invasive or non-invasive ventilation, blood products or dialysis, all specifically refused.
SPEAKER_00:And she even added a narrative note from her primary doc, emphasizing her desire to avoid her mother's fate on life support. She said, basically, when it is my time to go, let me go. I don't want anybody doing anything. Very clear.
SPEAKER_01:Very clear indeed. Yet upon her arrival, her husband, the person she had appointed as her surrogate, vehemently insisted the medical team do everything you can to keep her alive.
SPEAKER_00:And that is the core conflict we're unpacking today. That stark opposition.
SPEAKER_01:OK, so given this devastating situation, the patient is critically ill. Her directive is so explicit. How did the initial actions of the medical team actually unfold?
SPEAKER_00:Well, that's an important point to consider right away. Our sources indicate the trauma team initiated non-invasive ventilation, you know, BiPAP, and then they intubated her. Her son was contacted, apparently, and he consented to the intubation.
SPEAKER_01:He consented. OK.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. But from an ethics perspective, the Roundtable paper points out that these initial actions were quote, violations of LK's advance directive.
SPEAKER_01:Violations, wow.
SPEAKER_00:What's particularly striking and frankly concerning is that this advance directive was on file at the very same VA medical center, yet it wasn't immediately accessible or consulted when she arrived in the ER or during her initial ICU admission.
SPEAKER_01:So it was there, but just not seen.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. And this highlights a critical logistical challenge, doesn't it? Upholding patient autonomy during emergencies, even when the patient has done meticulous planning. The paper also raises questions about the son's consent, calling it a very weak sort of consent, especially since he apparently said something like, I was afraid she wrote that down somewhere, which strongly suggests he knew about her wishes.
SPEAKER_01:It really makes you wonder, if a patient has gone to such lengths to document her wishes, why aren't those wishes immediately accessible and acted upon right when they matter most? It's baffling.
SPEAKER_00:It is. It points to system issues, communication gaps, things that can have profound consequences. Now
SPEAKER_01:let's turn our attention to LK's husband. He was designated as her surrogate in the directive itself. But when he arrived, his statements were just stark. If she dies, I will die. Do everything you can to keep her alive. And repeating, you have to keep her alive. She can't die. What does that tell us about his ability to be a surrogate?
SPEAKER_00:Well, it reveals a profound disconnect, really. The ethics perspective in the paper thoroughly explains why the husband was deemed an unfit surrogate. The fundamental definition, the core principle of a surrogate, is someone who makes decisions as the patient would have made them if they could. It's not about what the surrogate wants.
SPEAKER_01:Right. It's about the patient's voice.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. But the husband, he was clearly deciding based on his own desperate fear of losing his wife. He was equating her survival with his own. And adding another layer, his recent stroke presented cognitive issues. It affected his ability to retain information, to truly grasp the gravity of her critical condition. He just seemed to be acting on raw emotion and fear, not reasoned judgment.
SPEAKER_01:So the core issue wasn't just his understandable emotional distress, but that he wasn't acting as LK's agent. He was acting from his own desperate needs. That's a huge conflict of interest for someone in that role.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. A massive conflict. The paper actually lays out Beauchamp and Childress' four qualifications for surrogate decision makers, and the husband unfortunately failed on all counts.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, what are those?
SPEAKER_00:First, the ability to make reasoned judgments competent.
SPEAKER_01:Right.
SPEAKER_00:His actions were driven by emotion, fear, and his Cognitive issues meant he really couldn't make sound decisions here. Right. Second, adequate knowledge and information. He consistently struggled to understand the moral and legal weight of his wife's directive or her grim prognosis. They had to keep reorienting him.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_00:Third, emotional stability. I mean, his statements about his own death if she died clearly indicated he was emotionally unstable in this crisis.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, that's pretty clear.
SPEAKER_00:And fourth, commitment to the incompetent patient's interests free of conflicts. His commitment Commitment was explicitly to his own interest in his wife staying alive, creating a significant unresolvable conflict with her documented wishes.
SPEAKER_01:That analysis makes it incredibly clear. Even if someone is legally appointed, their ability to actually fulfill that role can be completely compromised, especially in these high stakes emotional situations. This case really drives home that just appointing a loved one isn't enough. It's about their capacity and their willingness to truly honor your wishes, even when it's incredibly hard for them.
SPEAKER_00:It's a tough conversation to have beforehand, but so crucial.
SPEAKER_01:And this is where the ethics roundtable format really shines, isn't it? We get to hear from different specialists, each bringing their unique lens. Let's start with the trauma surgeon's perspective. Their initial goal, understandably, is often life preservation at all costs.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, exactly. The trauma surgeon notes that their primary objective is to save a life, especially when a patient presents in extremis, basically, on the brink of death like LK did. They justify the initial actions to stabilize her, including the intubation, as a necessary That makes sense in an emergency. But they also emphasize that for elderly trauma patients, like LK, who was described as frail before the injury, early goals of care discussions are absolutely crucial. Even without an advanced directive handy, they recognize that, quote, So the immediate
SPEAKER_01:action is life-saving. but the conversation needs to happen fast.
SPEAKER_00:Needs to happen fast. The challenge, of course, is that clear directives are often not immediately available in trauma situations because of the suddenness of it all. Right. Now, shifting focus, how did spiritual care approach this incredibly emotional family dynamic? The spiritual care provider stresses respecting patient autonomy is a really high ethical priority. Their role often involves helping patients articulate their goals of care before a crisis hits. They fully acknowledged the husband's deep emotional pain, suggesting an opportunity to explore what lies beneath his gut-wrenching statements to better understand his perspective in grief. That compassion is key.
SPEAKER_01:Understanding the why behind his words.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. But they also raised skepticism about the son, remember, the one who consented to intubation despite knowing his mother's wishes. That comment, I was afraid she wrote that down somewhere, was telling.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, that's problematic.
SPEAKER_00:Very. So their recommendation was actually to bring the husband son, and even the grandson together. Let them share their perspectives and try to collaboratively arrive at a decision that truly reflects LK's wishes, recognizing that neither the husband nor the son seemed like an ideal surrogate on their own.
SPEAKER_01:Wow. That sounds like it requires tremendous skill, a lot of nuance and compassion needed there to navigate such delicate family dynamics.
SPEAKER_00:Definitely.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. From the physician's vantage point, what was their take on the situation?
SPEAKER_00:Well, the physician fully concurred with the team's assessment that the His son, despite his initial hesitation, was likely the most appropriate surrogate, mainly because of the husband's cognitive issues and his clear panic mode.
SPEAKER_01:So they agree the husband wasn't suitable.
SPEAKER_00:Right. They reiterated that a surrogate must exercise substituted judgment, meaning they act exactly as the patient would have and be of sound mind. The physician observed that the husband's focus was entirely on his own fear of loss, not on his wife's best interest or her clearly stated wishes. They just weren't aligned. They also warned that if the husband continued to object strongly, legal input might be required, really highlighting that difficult intersection of medicine and law.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, you can see how it quickly escalates. And bringing in the social work perspective, how did they view this complex dilemma?
SPEAKER_00:The social worker highlighted a truly heartbreaking paradox here. LK did everything right in her advanced care planning, meticulously documenting her wishes.
SPEAKER_01:She did her part.
SPEAKER_00:She absolutely did. Yet the dilemma arose directly from appointing a surrogate who, despite his love for her, ultimately disagreed with those wishes when push came to shove. They emphasized that a social worker's ethical duty is to safeguard the interests and rights of patients who lack decision-making capacity. That's paramount.
SPEAKER_01:Protect the patient.
SPEAKER_00:Protect the patient. While emphasizing deeply with the husband's emotional pain and understanding that overwhelming emotions can profoundly impair how people process information, they firmly stated that LK's documented preferences must take precedence. And they raised a fascinating and crucial point from research. About one-third of the time, surrogates actually make decisions different from what the patient would have wanted.
SPEAKER_01:One-third. Yeah,
SPEAKER_00:often based on the surrogate's own preferences and values, not the patient's. This suggests a vital need for patients to discuss not just their own wishes, but also their potential surrogate's values and their willingness to uphold those wishes no matter how difficult when appointing them. It's a deeper conversation.
SPEAKER_01:That's a really important point. It's not just naming someone. It's vetting their ability to follow through.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. So
SPEAKER_01:this case is clearly not just medical or ethical, but deeply legal, too. What does the law actually say here regarding a patient's advance directive and a surrogate's authority?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, this brings up a crucial legal principle. The legal perspective is firm. Every person has a fundamental constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. That's based on U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Advanced directives like LKs. They serve as the patient's voice when they can't communicate.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, the legal standing is clear.
SPEAKER_00:Very clear. And critically, a health care surrogate is legally required to comply with the patient's wishes, however they're expressed. They are agents of the patient. They must act according to the patient's instructions and known preferences. The law is quite clear. The surrogate's authority extends only to interpreting the patient's wishes, not overriding them with their own. They don't get to substitute their judgment for the patient's documented will.
SPEAKER_01:So the husband, despite being legally appointed, effectively had no legal authority to contradict LPA's advance directive. That's a powerful distinction.
SPEAKER_00:Precisely. No legal authority to contradict. The paper even cites the Cardoza case from 2008. In that case, a hospital was found not immune from liability for following a son's decision that contradicted his mother's advance directive.
SPEAKER_01:Why not immune?
SPEAKER_00:Because the court held that the surrogate simply did not have the authority to contravene the patient's documented wishes. Therefore, the hospital couldn't have complied in good faith with the surrogate's incorrect instructions.
SPEAKER_01:So following the unfit surrogate was actually a legal risk for the hospital?
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. Therefore, the legal recommendation in LK's case is unambiguous. The medical provider should refuse to follow her husband's directions, given her clear directive and his lack of capacity and inability to act as her agent. Failure to honor LK's wishes could, in fact, lead to adverse legal consequences for the providers themselves. It flips the usual concern on its head.
SPEAKER_01:That's a very clear legal stance, laying out significant risk for the medical team if they don't uphold the patient's wishes. So what viable options did the legal expert present for the medical team facing this exact, very difficult conflict?
SPEAKER_00:Well, they outlined three distinct options for the medical team to consider. None of them easy. Option one, deem the husband unavailable. and appoint the son as an alternate surrogate. This is considered the most legally sound answer, especially if the local jurisdiction allows for determining unavailability based on incapacity or conflict.
SPEAKER_01:But there's a downside.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, the significant downside is the very real risk of litigation from the husband. Even if the providers would likely win in court, it puts the medical team in a potentially adversarial position with the family.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, option two.
SPEAKER_00:Ask a court to replace the husband as surrogate. This is generally seen as safer for the providers because a court order would definitively resolve the dispute and provide clear legal protection.
SPEAKER_01:But...
SPEAKER_00:But it's time-consuming and resource-intensive. Getting a court involved takes time, and in urgent medical situations where every hour counts for patient care, that delay can be critically problematic. It's a legal path, not a quick medical fix.
SPEAKER_01:Right. Time is often of
SPEAKER_00:the essence. And the third option... This option is presented as perhaps the safest for providers looking to avoid immediate conflict within their own institution.
SPEAKER_01:But it doesn't solve the problem.
SPEAKER_00:No, it essentially kicks the can down the road, as they say. It leaves another facility to face the exact same ethical and legal issues. It doesn't resolve the core conflict for LK. It just shifts the burden.
SPEAKER_01:So truly no easy answers for anyone involved. Clear legal pathways, yes, but each with significant drawbacks. It just highlights the incredibly complex navigation we're between patient rights, family grief, and medical duty under immense pressure.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. A real tightrope walk.
SPEAKER_01:This deep dive really illustrates the multifaceted challenges of end-of-life care, especially in these critical situations. So what are the big takeaways for us, for the listeners?
SPEAKER_00:Well, firstly, I think the immense power of a clear, advanced directive. It truly is the patient's voice when they can no longer speak, and it demands profound respect and, crucially, immediate accessibility within the healthcare system. That logistical piece matters.
SPEAKER_01:Accessibility is key.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely. And secondly, the critical importance of choosing the right surrogate. It's not just about who you love or who is closest to you. It's about who you trust implicitly to carry out your specific wishes, even if those wishes conflict with their own emotional comfort or personal beliefs. The husband, in this case, you know, likely appointed out of love and trust, was tragically unable to set aside his own emotional turmoil to truly act as LK's agent.
SPEAKER_01:That makes so much sense. We often think about naming a loved one, our spouse, our child, but we don't always fully consider how incredibly difficult that role truly is or if they're actually equipped to put our wishes first, even in their own grief.
SPEAKER_00:Exactly. It requires a specific kind of strength and commitment. And for healthcare providers, this case unequivocally underscores the ethical and legal imperative to prioritize patient autonomy, even when it means navigating incredibly difficult family dynamics and potential legal challenges. You have to advocate for the patient's documented wishes. And remember the social work perspective. It reminded us that patients should discuss not only their own preferences with potential surrogates, but also try to learn their surrogate's values to help ensure alignment, to try and prevent It pushes us
SPEAKER_01:beyond just filling out a
SPEAKER_00:form. It makes us consider the entire process of advanced care planning as an ongoing dialogue, a living, breathing conversation that might need to So, for you, our
SPEAKER_01:listener, here's a provocative thought to maybe mull over as you go about your day. What steps can you take today to ensure your voice is heard, even in silence, and that your wishes are truly honored? Are your advanced directives up to date? Are they easily accessible to your medical team, maybe in your electronic health record, if possible? And perhaps most importantly, have you had those sometimes uncomfortable but absolutely Those are the key questions, aren't they?
SPEAKER_00:They
SPEAKER_01:really are. Thank you for joining us on this deep dive. Until next time, keep seeking knowledge and keep asking the important questions.
