1 / 23

Medical Ethics and Choice of Treatment or Determining decision making capacity – drawing clear lines in a murky sea of g

Medical Ethics and Choice of Treatment or Determining decision making capacity – drawing clear lines in a murky sea of gray…. James Hallenbeck, MD Director, Palliative Care Services VA Palo Alto HCS. Draw a line, separating black from white. Black = lacking capacity White = has capacity.

ezekial
Download Presentation

Medical Ethics and Choice of Treatment or Determining decision making capacity – drawing clear lines in a murky sea of g

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Medical Ethics and Choice of TreatmentorDetermining decision making capacity – drawing clear lines in a murky sea of gray… James Hallenbeck, MD Director, Palliative Care Services VA Palo Alto HCS

  2. Draw a line, separating black from white • Black = lacking capacity • White = has capacity How do you determine decision making capacity?

  3. Do you have decision making capacity relative to the following: • Choosing what to eat for lunch? • Determining what type of motor oil to use for your car? • Investing in the stock market? • Deciding to undergo liposuction • Choosing the best antibiotic for an infection? • Where to live, while dying?

  4. Goals of presentation • To raise more questions than I answer • Highlight traditional ways of thinking about decision making and capacity in medical ethics • Present a brief critique of this approach • Some suggestions for better ways to procede

  5. What “factors” go into making a decision? • Personal preferences • Not entirely rational, related to values and esthetics • Knowledge/understanding • Risk assessment – probability of benefit/burden • Less obvious: potential involvement of and impact on other people

  6. Definitions “Core meaning” of competence: “The ability to perform a task.” Beauchamp • Decision making capacity: determined by clinicians • Competence for decision making: determined by the court Are capacity and competence different in terms of ethics or effect, or merely different in terms of who decides?

  7. Decision making capacity • “In medical contexts, for example, a person is usually considered competent if able to understand a therapeutic or research procedure, to deliberate regarding its major risks and benefits, and to make a decision in light of this deliberation.” Beachamp & Childress

  8. Linkage of capacity to the decision • Classic teaching: decision making capacity is determined relative to particular decisions • Patients may have capacity for some decisions and not others • Example: a patient with dementia may be able to chose to take a pain pill, but not whether to have a particular surgery

  9. Problems with linking capacity to individual decisions: • Competence vs. capacity: as competence is a time-consuming procedure – more a determination regarding the patient than the decision – medical decisions tend to be “bundled” in competency determinations • Not always practical – how many decisions are made in a day? • Capacity may fluctuate over time

  10. Patient characteristics of capacity • Fixed vs. fluctuating mental functioning • Capacity of the individual to deal with a decision • Potential ability vs. actual ability

  11. Potential ability to deal with a decision • Ability to “hold” information • Attention, memory • Ability to consider new information • Ability for “reasonable” reasoning • IQ • Free from internal coercive forces

  12. Actual ability to make a decision • Presumes potential abilities, but goes on to evaluate whether the person actually as the necessary information and understanding to make a choice • Example: While I presumably have the necessary potential to be a stock investor, some would say I lack the ability to invest

  13. Characteristics of the choice • Potential benefit-burden • Low risk/high gain: a low threshold for determining capacity • Probability of benefit or burden • Environmental and coercive forces

  14. Problem of testing • Desire for an “empiric” test to provide necessary information – avoiding personal bias • Problems • Temporal fluctuation • To the extent capacity is linked to specific decisions, ? Applicability of chosen test to that decision

  15. Beauchamp’s range of incompetence • Inability to express or communicate a choice • Inability to understand one’s situation and its consequences • Inability to understand relevant information • Inability to reason • Inability to give a rational (italics mine) reason

  16. Beauchamp’s range of incompetence – cont. • Inability to give risk/benefit related reasons • Inability to reach a reasonable decision Tests can be applied to address these specific factors involved in decision making

  17. Historical perspective • Current way of thinking of medical decision making capacity very recent – last 30-40 years • The problem of having to make decisions related to the care of sick individuals of questionable capacity is not new What changed?

  18. Changes influencing thinking about medical decisions • Medical decisions more complex with bigger stakes, medically and economically • A cultural shift in favor of autonomy over medical paternalism • A more litigious health care environment and society

  19. What is wrong with this approach? • Not psychologically or anthropologically based, but based on abstract ethical principles and law • Prioritization on rationality (reason over values) • Probability assessment • Individual (rather than collective) decision making Example hormone replacement study

  20. Presumption of “competence” on the part of assigned judges • Clinicians: often lack training, have strong biases, not always rationally based • Courts: what is their training? • Court-appointment guardians – may be influenced (coerced) by political forces having nothing to do with the patient’s best interests

  21. What to do? • Approach topic with humility – acknowledge that we may not be terribly wise about this

  22. What to do? • Balance hyper-rational, legalistic approach with notions of kindness, flexibility and an appreciation for more human attributes of decision making involving: • Values and stories • Culture • Mutual respect • Negotiation • A sense of humor

  23. We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland

More Related