Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:24:18.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Surrogate Decisionmaking and Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Debjani Mukherjee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mr. Hope’s family’s expectations and his staff’s concerns raise important issues about surrogate decisionmaking, communication regarding prognosis, and staff angst. Unfortunately, Mr. Hope himself is unable to reliably understand and communicate his preferences, especially for complex medical decisions, so the ethics consultant is left to negotiate the disagreement between his family and his healthcare providers, who presumably both believe they are acting in his best interest.

Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 560 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Torke, AM, Alexander, GC, Lantos, J. Substituted judgment: The limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008;23(9):1514–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. See note 1, Torke et al. 2008, at 1514.

3. See note 1, Torke et al. 2008, at 1515.

4. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. NINDS Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy Information Page ; available at http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/pml/pml.htm (last accessed 30 Nov 2015).

5. See note 1, Torke et al. 2008, at 1516.