Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumAdvance Directives and End-of-Life Care

A physician is called to the bedside of a 62-year-old woman with widely metastatic ovarian cancer who is experiencing profound respiratory distress. She has transitioned to comfort-focused care and has a legally binding 'Do Not Resuscitate' (DNR) and 'Do Not Intubate' (DNI) order. Over the past two hours, she has become increasingly obtunded and completely lacks decision-making capacity. Her husband, who serves as her legally designated healthcare proxy, states that he cannot bear to watch her suffer and asks the medical team to prioritize immediate symptom relief. The patient is exhibiting significant air hunger with a respiratory rate of 34/min and an oxygen saturation of 81% on room air. The attending physician plans to initiate a continuous intravenous morphine infusion. The covering clinical pharmacist pages the team, expressing concern that the prescribed opioid dose will cause terminal respiratory depression and hasten the patient's death. Based on the ethical principles governing end-of-life care, which of the following is the most appropriate next step in management?

  1. Administer the prescribed morphine infusion to alleviate the patient's severe dyspnea and sufferingAnswer
  2. B
    Withhold the morphine infusion to uphold the ethical duty of nonmaleficence
  3. C
    Consult the hospital ethics committee for emergency review before administering the opioid
  4. D
    Decrease the morphine dose to a subtherapeutic level to prevent respiratory suppression
  5. E
    Perform endotracheal intubation to reverse the acute respiratory failure before giving analgesics

Answer

Administer the prescribed morphine infusion to alleviate the patient's severe dyspnea and suffering
The correct management is to administer the morphine infusion to relieve the patient's severe dyspnea. This clinical scenario illustrates the ethical principle of double effect. This principle applies when a medical intervention has two foreseeable outcomes: one beneficial and intended (e.g., relief of severe air hunger or pain), and one harmful and unintended (e.g., respiratory depression causing a hastened death). As long as the physician's primary intention is to relieve suffering, the action is ethically permissible. The patient's lack of capacity, valid DNR/DNI order, and the explicit request for comfort by her legal healthcare proxy establish a clear foundation for palliative interventions.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Assess the patient's capacity and advance directives.
The patient lacks decision-making capacity but has a valid DNR/DNI order and a legally designated healthcare proxy (her husband).
Establishing capacity and identifying the valid decision-maker is the first legal and ethical step in end-of-life care.
2
Determine the goals of care based on the proxy's input and advance directive.
The goal of care is strictly comfort and symptom relief, as requested by the proxy and supported by the DNI/DNR status.
Medical interventions must align with the patient's known values and the directives provided by their legal surrogate.
3
Apply the ethical principle of double effect to the use of opioids.
Administering morphine is justified to relieve the severe air hunger, even if it carries the secondary, unintended risk of respiratory depression.
The primary intent is beneficent (alleviating suffering), making the foreseeable but unintended consequence (hastened death) ethically permissible.

Key Concept

Principle of double effect in end-of-life care
Rate this question

Topics

Advance Directives and End-of-Life Care

More questions from this topic