No abstract

Health professionals have been known to override patients' advance directives. The most ethically problematic instances involve a directive's explicitly forbidding the administration of some life-prolonging treatment like resuscitation or intubation with artificial ventilation. Sometimes the code team is unaware of the directive, but in other instances, the override is done knowingly and intentionally with clinicians later pleading that it was done "in the patient's best interests." This article surveys a twenty-year period extending back to 1997 when ethicists began to question the legitimacy of overriding advance directives despite clinicians believing they had compelling reasons to do so. A legal and ethical analysis of advance directive overrides is provided as no court to date has awarded damages to plaintiffs who alleged their loved one suffered "wrongful life" following a successful life-prolonging intervention. A hypothetical scenario is especially discussed wherein a patient's DNR status is overridden because her cardiac arrest was caused by error whose effects might be reversible. The authors conclude with a strategy for mitigating certain vagaries associated with overriding advance directives, but suggest that until courts provide clinicians with clear guidelines and protections, violations of patients' advance directives are likely to continue.In 1997, physicians David Casarett and Lainie Ross authored a "Sounding Board" article in The New England Journal of Medicine. They imagined "a 69-year-old man with metastatic lung cancer who is undergoing chemotherapy. He is admitted to the hospital for pneumonia and requests a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. He suffers a cardiac arrest due to an anaphylactic reaction to an

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract