Literature DB >> 22822709

Legal briefing: The unbefriended: making healthcare decisions for patients without surrogates (Part 2).

Thaddeus Mason Pope1, Tanya Sellers.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: This issue's "Legal Briefing" column continues coverage of recent legal developments involving medical decision making for unbefriended patients. These patients have neither decision-making capacity nor a reasonably available surrogate to make healthcare decisions on their behalf. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. It has been the subject of major policy reports. Indeed, caring for the unbefriended has even been described as the "single greatest category of problems" encountered in bioethics consultation. Moreover, the scope of the problem continues to expand, especially with rapid growth in the elderly population and with an increased prevalence of dementia. Unfortunately, most U.S.jurisdictions have failed to adopt effective healthcare decision-making systems or procedures for the unbefriended. "Existing mechanisms to address the issue of decision making for the unbefriended are scant and not uniform." Most providers are "muddling through on an ad hoc basis." Still, over the past several months, a number of state legislatures have finally addressed the issue. These developments and a survey of the current landscape are grouped into the following 14 categories. The first two categories define the problem of medical decision making for the unbefriended.The remaining 12 describe different solutions to the problem. The first six categories were covered in Part 1 of this article; the last eight categories are covered in this issue (Part 2). 1. Who are the unbefriended? 2. Risks and problems of the unbefriended. 3. PREVENTION: advance care planning, diligent searching, and careful capacity assessment. 4. Decision-making mechanisms and standards. 5. Emergency exception to informed consent. 6. Expanded default surrogate lists: close friends. 7. Private guardians. 8. Volunteer guardians. 9. Public guardians. 10. Temporary and emergency guardians. 11. Attending physicians. 12. Other clinicians, individuals, and entities. 13. Institutional committees. 14. External committees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22822709

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Ethics        ISSN: 1046-7890


  6 in total

1.  Ethical Concerns and Procedural Pathways for Patients Who are Incapacitated and Alone: Implications from a Qualitative Study for Advancing Ethical Practice.

Authors:  Jennifer Moye; Casey Catlin; Jennifer Kwak; Erica Wood; Pamela B Teaster
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2017-06

2.  The Role of a Hospital Ethics Consultation Service in Decision-Making for Unrepresented Patients.

Authors:  Andrew M Courtwright; Joshua Abrams; Ellen M Robinson
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 1.352

Review 3.  Informed consent in dental care and research for the older adult population: A systematic review.

Authors:  Amrita Mukherjee; Alicia A Livinski; Joseph Millum; Steffany Chamut; Shahdokht Boroumand; Timothy J Iafolla; Margo R Adesanya; Bruce A Dye
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 3.634

4.  Ethical and Legal Considerations in the Management of an Unbefriended Patient in a Vegetative State.

Authors:  Alexandra Lloyd-Smith Sequeira; Ariane Lewis
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.210

5.  Making Medical Decisions for Incapacitated Patients Without Proxies: Part I.

Authors:  Cynthia Griggins; Eric Blackstone; Lauren McAliley; Barbara Daly
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2020-03

6.  A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: what do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor?

Authors:  David Wendler; Bob Wesley; Mark Pavlick; Annette Rid
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 2.903

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.