Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumAdvance Directives and End-of-Life Care

During morning rounds in the medical intensive care unit, the team discusses a patient with metastatic prostate cancer who was admitted overnight for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure secondary to severe lobar pneumonia. He is currently delirious, cannot communicate reliably, and lacks decision-making capacity. Three years prior, the patient executed a valid advance directive that appointed his spouse as his healthcare proxy and explicitly included a 'Do Not Intubate' (DNI) order for any future hospitalizations.

However, the spouse informs the team that during an outpatient palliative care visit just two weeks ago, the patient, who possessed full capacity at the time, explicitly told both his oncologist and the spouse that he wanted to rescind the DNI order. He stated he would accept temporary mechanical ventilation for a reversible condition like pneumonia, though he did not formally update his written documents. The patient's adult son from a previous marriage arrives and angrily demands that the medical team adhere strictly to the written DNI order. The patient's respiratory status is now rapidly declining, and the spouse is requesting immediate intubation.

Which of the following is the most appropriate next step in management?

  1. Proceed with intubation based on the spouse's authorization and the patient's recent oral statementsAnswer
  2. B
    Withhold intubation as stipulated by the original written directive, since it was not formally amended
  3. C
    Follow the adult son's demand to withhold intubation to avoid legal liability from a family dispute
  4. D
    Delay intubation until an emergency ethics committee meeting can mediate the disagreement
  5. E
    Obtain an emergency court injunction to legally invalidate the written DNI order before proceeding

Answer

Proceed with intubation based on the spouse's authorization and the patient's recent oral statements.
The most appropriate action is to proceed with intubation. The patient currently lacks decision-making capacity, meaning medical decisions fall to his legally appointed healthcare proxy (his spouse). The ethical standard for proxy decision-making is 'substituted judgment,' which requires the proxy to make the decision the patient would make if they were competent. Because the patient explicitly and competently stated his desire to rescind the DNI order just two weeks prior, the spouse is correctly applying his most recent wishes. Oral revocation of a written advance directive by a competent patient is legally and ethically valid; formal written updates are not strictly required to change one's code status. The medical team should respect the proxy's authorization and the patient's recent autonomous choices.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Assess the patient's current decision-making capacity.
The patient is delirious and lacks the capacity to make his own current medical decisions.
Establishing capacity is the required first step to determine whether the patient can direct their own care or if a surrogate must intervene.
2
Identify the legally authorized surrogate decision-maker.
The spouse is the legally designated healthcare proxy, superseding the adult son.
A designated healthcare proxy has legal priority over default statutory next-of-kin in making medical decisions for an incapacitated patient.
3
Evaluate the patient's previously expressed wishes.
Although there is a 3-year-old written DNI, the patient orally revoked it while possessing full capacity two weeks prior.
Under the principle of substituted judgment, the surrogate must make decisions based on the patient's most recent and relevant autonomous wishes, which legally override older written documents.

Key Concept

Oral revocation of an advance directive by a competent patient and the authority of a legally designated healthcare proxy executing substituted judgment.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Advance Directives and End-of-Life Care

More questions from this topic