Sharon M. posted a comment that I had informed Eva’s son and it was ultimately up to him.  True that he was key in this process.  He was the voice for Eva. If he chose, is everyone who cares for Eva bound by his decision?  What if the harm of resuscitation outweighed the benefit? What if it is a different story and the patient was in an accident and is in a coma.  The doctors think aggressive treatment can save her, return her to a functional life with quality (and who gets to decide that anyway)?  The surrogate says, no, do not intubate.  Whose decision should carry the weight?  How would YOU decide?

What could I do?  What should I do with Eva’s case?

We were taught certain key values in ethics classes:

Autonomy: Every person has the right to self determination.  This would include the surrogate decision maker, like Eva’s son, acting on her behalf.

Beneficence: We are to act for the good of the patient

Non-Maleficence: “Primum no nocere”  or First, do no harm

Justice: This calls for the fair distribution of scarce resources and fairness and equity in delivery of care (not a hallmark of the US Healthcare System)

Respect:  Every person should be treated with dignity

Honesty and clarity: Informed consent comes from this concept.

There is a four box methodology for sorting through all this, which is copied from here 

MEDICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Principles of Beneficence and Nonmaleficence What is the patient’s medical problem? Is the problem acute? Chronic? Critical? Reversible? Emergent? Terminal? What are the goals of treatment? In what circumstances are medical treatments not indicated? What are the probabilities of success of various treatment options? In sum, how can this patient be benefited by medical and nursing care, and how can harm be avoided?

PATIENT PREFERENCES The Principle of Respect for Autonomy Has the patient been informed of benefits and risks, understood this information, and given consent? Is the patient mentally capable and legally competent, and is there evidence of incapacity? If mentally capable, what preferences about treatment is the patient stating? If incapacitated, has the patient expressed prior preferences? Who is the appropriate surrogate to make decisions for the incapacitated patient? Is the patient unwilling or unable to cooperate with medical treatment? If so, why?

QUALITY OF LIFE The Principles of beneficence and Nonmaleficence and Respect for Autonomy What are the prospects, with or without treatment, for a return to normal life, and what physical, mental, and social deficits might the patient experience even if treatment succeeds? On what grounds can anyone judge that some quality of life would be undesirable for a patient who cannot make or express such a judgment? Are there biases that might prejudice the provider’s evaluation of the patient’s quality of life? What ethical issues arise concerning improving or enhancing a patient’s quality of life? Do quality-of-life assessments raise any questions regarding changes in treatment plans, such as forgoing life-sustaining treatment? What are plans and rationale to forgo life-sustaining treatment? What is the legal and ethical status of suicide?

CONTEXTUAL FEATURES The Principles of Justice and Fairness Are there professional, interprofessional, or business interests that might create conflicts of interest in the clinical treatment of patients? Are there parties other than clinicians and patients, such as family members, who have an interest in clinical decisions? What are the limits imposed on patient confidentiality by the legitimate interests of third parties? Are there financial factors that create conflicts of interest in clinical decisions? Are there problems of allocation of scarce health resources that might affect clinical decisions? Are there religious issues that might affect clinical decisions? What are the legal issues that might affect clinical decisions? Are there considerations of clinical research and education that might affect clinical decisions? Are there issues of public health and safety that affect clinical decisions? Are there conflicts of interest within institutions or organizations (e.g. hospitals) that may affect clinical decisions and patient welfare?

Back when I first was a student and resident, we involved patients and families in discussions of code status.  Usually we agreed.  If we did not, we would continue to talk with patients and families and tell them if we thought the person was a “no code.”  This process became more formalized in the places I practiced, but there still were still times when the patients and their families did not agree with us, the doctors.  We talked and inevitably we agreed, always, in my practice, erring on the side of letting someone stay in the full resuscitation category.

Never before Eva had I reached this block.  Take a look at the four boxes.  What do you need to know in Eva’s case?  How would you approach this?  If it is totally Eva’s son’s right to decide, do I have an obligation to perform CPR and advanced life support measures, even if they go against what I think I took as a physician’s oath?

In all ethical crises, two or more values come into conflict.  In this one it is where autonomy comes into conflict with beneficence/non-maleficence. Can you weigh in?