Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaAdvance Directives and End-of-Life Care

A 64-year-old female patient with advanced stage IV ovarian cancer is admitted to the oncology ward for the management of severe, intractable abdominal pain. She is fully alert, oriented, and explicitly states she understands her poor prognosis. She possesses decision-making capacity and has a documented do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order in her chart. Despite receiving escalating doses of scheduled and as-needed oral opioids, she continues to experience excruciating pain. The palliative care team recommends starting a high-dose continuous intravenous morphine infusion. Her husband, who is her legally designated healthcare proxy, is extremely anxious and states, "Please do not start the IV drip. I know that high doses of morphine can cause respiratory depression and make her die faster. I cannot lose her yet." The patient tells the physician, "I understand the risks completely, but I cannot bear this pain for another minute. Please give me the IV medication." Which of the following is the most appropriate next step in management?

  1. Administer the continuous intravenous morphine infusionCevap
  2. B
    Withhold the continuous intravenous morphine infusion in accordance with the husband's wishes
  3. C
    Consult the hospital ethics committee to mediate the disagreement
  4. D
    Administer a subtherapeutic dose of intravenous morphine to prioritize respiratory drive preservation
  5. E
    Suspend the patient's do-not-resuscitate order prior to initiating the continuous intravenous morphine infusion

Cevap

The most appropriate next step is to administer the continuous intravenous morphine infusion, respecting the competent patient's autonomy and applying the principle of double effect.
The correct answer is to administer the continuous intravenous morphine infusion. This scenario tests two crucial ethical concepts in end-of-life care: patient capacity and the principle of double effect. First, a designated healthcare proxy (the husband) only assumes decision-making authority when the patient loses capacity. Because this patient is fully alert, oriented, and competent, her autonomy is paramount, and she retains the right to direct her own medical care. Second, the principle of double effect ethically justifies the administration of interventions intended to relieve severe suffering (such as escalating doses of opioids for intractable pain), even if there is a foreseeable, unintended secondary effect of hastening death through respiratory depression.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Assess the patient's decision-making capacity.
The patient is fully alert, oriented, and demonstrates an understanding of her prognosis and the risks of the treatment.
Establishing capacity determines who has the legal and ethical authority to make medical decisions.
2
Evaluate the role of the healthcare proxy in this specific scenario.
Because the patient retains capacity, the husband's status as healthcare proxy is currently dormant and his objections do not override the patient's autonomy.
A surrogate decision-maker is only authorized to act when the patient is unable to make or communicate decisions.
3
Apply the principle of double effect to the patient's request for pain relief.
The primary intent is to relieve excruciating pain. The foreseeable but unintended consequence of respiratory depression is ethically permissible.
End-of-life care often requires balancing aggressive symptom control with the risk of hastening death.

Anahtar Kavram

In end-of-life care, a competent patient's autonomy supersedes a healthcare proxy's wishes, and the principle of double effect permits aggressive pain management even if it risks hastening death.
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Advance Directives and End-of-Life Care

Bu konudan daha fazla soru