Abstract
Adults who are incapacitated and alone, having no surrogates, may be known as “unbefriended.” Decision-making for these particularly vulnerable patients is a common and vexing concern for healthcare providers and hospital ethics committees. When all other avenues for resolving the need for surrogate decision-making fail, patients who are incapacitated and alone may be referred for “public guardianship” or guardianship of last resort. While an appropriate mechanism in theory, these programs are often under-staffed and under-funded, laying the consequences of inadequacies on the healthcare system and the patient him or herself. We describe a qualitative study of professionals spanning clinical, court, and agency settings about the mechanisms for resolving surrogate consent for these patients and problems therein within the state of Massachusetts. Interviews found that all participants encountered adults who are incapacitated and without surrogates. Four approaches for addressing surrogate needs were: (1) work to restore capacity; (2) find previously unknown surrogates; (3) work with agencies to obtain surrogates; and (4) access the guardianship system. The use of guardianship was associated with procedural challenges and ethical concerns including delays in care, short term gains for long term costs, inabilities to meet a patient’s values and preferences, conflicts of interest, and ethical discomfort among interviewees. Findings are discussed in the context of resources to restore capacity, identify previously unknown surrogates, and establish improved surrogate mechanisms for this vulnerable population.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Massachusetts offers limited payment to guardians who are appointed with authority to monitor antipsychotic medication use, colloquially referred to as ‘Rogers,’ after the case which led to the practice. Rogers v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, 390 Mass. 489, 458 N.E.2d 308 (1983).
References
American Bar Association/American Psychological Association Assessment of Capacity in Older Adults Project Working Group. (2008). Assessment of older adults with diminished capacity: A handbook for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Bar Association and American Psychological Association.
Bandy, R. J., Helft, P. R., Bandy, R. W., & Torke, A. M. (2010). Medical decision-making during the guardianship process for incapacitated, hospitalized adults: A descriptive cohort study. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 1003–1008.
Bandy, R., Sachs, G. A., Montz, K., Inger, L., Bandy, R. W., & Torke, A. M. (2014). Wishard Volunteer Advocates Program: An intervention for at-risk, incapacitated, unbefriended adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62, 2171–2179.
Castillo, L. S., Williams, B. A., Hooper, S. M., Sabatino, C. P., Weithorn, L. A., & Sudore, R. L. (2011). Lost in translation: The unintended consequences of advance directive law on clinical care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 154, 121–128.
Connor, D. M., Elkin, G. D., Lee, K., Thompson, V., & Whelan, H. (2016). The unbefriended patient: An exercise in ethical clinical reasoning. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31, 128–132.
Courtwright, A., & Rubin, E. (2016). Who should decide for the unrepresented? Bioethics, 30, 173–180.
Doukas, D. J., & McCullough, L. B. (1991). The values history: The evaluation of the patient’s values and advance directives. The Journal of Family Practice, 32, 145–153.
Isaacs, E. D., & Brody, R. V. (2010). The unbefriended adult patient: The San Francisco General Hospital approach to ethical dilemmas. San Francisco Medical Journal, 83, 25–26.
Karel, M. J., Powell, J., & Cantor, M. (2004). Using a values discussion guide to facilitate communication in advance care planning. Patient Education and Counseling, 55, 22–31.
Karp, N., & Wood, E. (2003). Incapaciated and alone: Medical decision-making for the unbefriended elderly. Washington DC: American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging.
Moye, J., Wood, E., Teaster, P., Catlin, C., & Kwak, J. (2016). Examining the need for a public guardian in Massachusetts: Phase 1. Andover: Massachusetts Guardianship Policy Institute.
Naik, A. D., Martin, L. A., Moye, J., & Karel, M. J. (2016). Health values and treatment goals among older, multimorbid adults facing life-threatening illness. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 64, 625–631.
Norris, W. M., Nielsen, E. L., Engelberg, R. A., & Curtis, J. R. (2005). Treatment preferences for resuscitation and critical care among homeless persons. Chest, 127, 2180–2187.
Pope, T. M., & Sellers, T. (2012). Legal briefing. The unbefriended: Making healthcare decisions for patients without surrogates (Part 2). The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 23, 177–192.
Sabatino, C. P. (1991/1992). Death in the legislature: Inventing legal tools for autonomy. NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 19, 309–399.
Schmidt, W. C., Miller, K. S., Bell, W. G., & New, B. E. (1981). Public guardianship and the elderly. Cambridge: Balinger.
Teaster, P. B. (2002). The wards of public guardians: Voices of the unbefriended. Family Relations, 51, 344–351.
Teaster, P. B., Wood, E., Schmidt, W. C., Lawrence, S. A., & Mendionodo, M. (2010). Public guardianship after 25 years: In the best interest of incapacitated people? Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Publishing Company.
Teaster, P. B., Wood, E. F., Lawrence, W. F., & Schmidt, W. C. (2007). Wards of the state: A national study of public guardianship. Stetson Law Review, 37, 193–201.
Torke, A. M., Alexander, G. C., Lantos, J., & Siegler, M. (2007). The physician-surrogate relationship. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167, 1117–1121.
White, D. B., Curtis, J. R., Lo, B., & Luce, J. M. (2006). Decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for critically ill patients who lack both decision-making capacity and surrogate decision-makers. Critical Care Medicine, 34, 2053–2059.
White, D. B., Curtis, J. R., Wolf, L. E., Prendergast, T. J., Taichman, D. B., Kuniyoshi, G., et al. (2007). Life support for patients without a surrogate decision maker: Who decides? Annals of Internal Medicine, 147, 34–40.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by the Guardianship Community Trust. In addition, this material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Boston Veterans Administration Healthcare System. We thank the individuals who participated in our research interviews and who each gave generously of their time to speak with us about this important issue. Their commitment to the clients they serve was palpable and sincere.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moye, J., Catlin, C., Kwak, J. et al. Ethical Concerns and Procedural Pathways for Patients Who are Incapacitated and Alone: Implications from a Qualitative Study for Advancing Ethical Practice. HEC Forum 29, 171–189 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-016-9317-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-016-9317-9