Ethical and Legal Considerations Flashcards

An 88-year-old patient with end-stage heart failure is admitted with pneumonia. He has no advance directive and has lost decisional capacity. His two adult children are in conflict: his son wants to pursue aggressive treatment, including intubation, while his daughter states the patient would have wanted comfort-focused care only. The patient's wife is deceased. According to the most common legal hierarchy for surrogate decision-making, who should the clinical team primarily consult?

Answer: The adult children together, seeking consensus.

In the absence of a designated healthcare agent, most states have a legally specified hierarchy for surrogate decision-making. After a spouse, adult children typically have equal standing. The clinical team's primary obligation is to work with both children to reach a consensus based on the principle of substituted judgment—what the patient would have wanted. An ethics committee consultation is appropriate to facilitate mediation and clarify ethical principles, but the committee does not become the decision-maker. Prioritizing one child's view over the other's is not legally or ethically appropriate.

Which of the following is the primary ethical justification for administering escalating doses of opioids to relieve severe pain in a terminally ill patient, even with the foreseeable, but unintended, consequence of hastening the patient's death?

Answer: Principle of Double Effect

The Principle of Double Effect provides the ethical rationale for this clinical scenario. It states that an action with both a good effect (pain relief) and a potential bad effect (hastening death) is permissible if the action itself is morally good, the agent's intent is for the good effect, the bad effect is not the means to the good effect, and there is a proportionally grave reason to permit the bad effect. While beneficence (acting for the patient's good) and autonomy (respecting patient's choices) are relevant, the Principle of Double Effect specifically addresses the moral permissibility of the action despite the foreseen negative outcome.

An ACHPN is assessing the decisional capacity of a patient regarding a palliative chemotherapy regimen. The patient can clearly state their preference to decline the treatment. Which additional element is most critical for the ACHPN to confirm that the patient has decisional capacity?

Answer: The patient's understanding of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the proposed treatment.

Decisional capacity requires more than just stating a choice. The four key elements are the ability to: (1) communicate a choice, (2) understand the relevant information, (3) appreciate the situation and its consequences, and (4) reason through the treatment options. Therefore, confirming the patient's understanding of the risks, benefits, and alternatives is a critical component of a valid capacity assessment. Agreement with the physician, having a proxy, or the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis are not definitive determinants of capacity for a specific decision.

The primary goal of palliative sedation in the imminently dying patient is to:

Answer: Relieve intractable and refractory symptoms causing distress.

The primary and sole intention of palliative sedation is to relieve refractory symptoms that are causing unbearable suffering at the end of life. The level of sedation is titrated to the minimum necessary to achieve symptom control. While it may provide respite for the family, that is a secondary benefit, not the primary goal. Palliative sedation is ethically and legally distinct from euthanasia, as the intent is symptom relief, not to hasten death.

Which federal law requires Medicare and Medicaid-participating facilities, including hospices, to inform patients in writing of their right to accept or refuse treatment and their right to formulate an advance directive?

Answer: Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA)

The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) of 1990 is the federal law that mandates healthcare institutions receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds to provide adult patients with written information about their rights under state law to make decisions concerning their medical care. This includes the right to accept or refuse medical treatment and the right to formulate advance directives, such as living wills and durable powers of attorney for health care.

From an ethical standpoint, the distinction between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, such as artificial nutrition and hydration, is that:

Answer: There is no inherent ethical or legal difference between the two actions.

A broad consensus in medical ethics and law holds that there is no meaningful ethical distinction between withholding (not starting) and withdrawing (stopping) a life-sustaining treatment. Both actions are ethically equivalent and should be guided by the same principles: the patient's goals and wishes (autonomy), the potential benefits and burdens of the treatment, and the overall goals of care. The decision for either action should be based on a careful assessment of these factors, not on whether the treatment has already been initiated.