Rising use of advance directives has made surrogate decision making both easier and harder. In many cases, these directives help guide decision making for patients who have lost decision-making capacity. In some cases, however, directives may conflict with what physicians or surrogates view as what is in the patient’s best interest. These conflicts can place substantial emotional and moral burdens on physicians and surrogates, and there is little practical guidance for how to address them. We propose a 5-question framework for untangling the conflict between advance directives and best interests of a patient with a surrogate decision maker: (1) Is the clinical situation an emergency? (2) In view of the patient’s values and goals, how likely is it that the benefits of the intervention will outweigh the burdens? (3) How well does the advance directive fit the situation at hand? (4) How much leeway did the patient provide the surrogate for overriding the advance directive? (5) How well does the surrogate represent the patient’s best interests? We use 2 clinical cases with contrasting outcomes to demonstrate how this framework can help resolve common dilemmas.
DNAR indicates do not attempt to resuscitate.*In the absence of an unambiguous order prohibiting life-sustaining treatment, in an emergency, the best interests of the patient are to prolong life until there is time for deliberation.
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.