1 / 19

Marshall B. Kapp, J.D., M.P.H. Professor Emeritus Florida State University

Ethical Decision Making and Special Health Care Needs: A Family Member’s Perspective Special Needs Alliance 2018 Fall Meeting. Marshall B. Kapp, J.D., M.P.H. Professor Emeritus Florida State University. Introduction. My story Professional preparation and personal application

mjim
Download Presentation

Marshall B. Kapp, J.D., M.P.H. Professor Emeritus Florida State University

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. Ethical Decision Making and Special Health Care Needs: A Family Member’s Perspective Special Needs Alliance 2018 Fall Meeting Marshall B. Kapp, J.D., M.P.H. Professor Emeritus Florida State University

  2. Introduction • My story • Professional preparation and personal application • Decisions may involve chronic care mgt. (e.g., osteoporosis, diabetes), non-emergent acute situations (e.g., breast or prostate cancer), 4-alarm acute crises (e.g., ruptured appendix), transitions in care settings, and EoL/LSMT issues. • Emphasis here on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions

  3. Getting Competent Legal Services to Consumers and Their Families • Most consumers and families are clueless about selecting a lawyer. • So, too, are many of the advocacy and support organizations to whom consumers and families turn to for recommendations. • Ethical imperative, not just good marketing, to make your qualifications known

  4. Assumption: You have identified the client. • Attorney’s role is notto make ethical decisions about medical care. • Attorney’s role is to answer (substantively and procedurally): • What is required/Duty? • What is permissible/Authority/Power? • What is prohibited/Limits?

  5. The Fundamentals • Primacy of consumer autonomy • Evaluating decisional capacity/Shared decision making • Assisted capacity? • Capacity to execute Advance Directives? • Instruction directives (Living Wills) • Proxy directives (Durable Powers of Attorney)

  6. Problems with Instruction Directives • Philosophical—Person might change his/her mind later. • Practical • Directive doesn’t physically follow the person. • Directive likely limited to 4-alarm decisions • Directive may not provide much direction. • Caregivers are likely to be strangers. • Hence, better to utilize Proxy directives

  7. Surrogate or Proxy Decision Makers • Authority: • Proxy directive • Operation of state default decision making statute • Custom (“next of kin”)/”Bumbling through” • Formal judicial appointment (Guardianship or Conservatorship)

  8. When is this necessary? • Plenary or partial? • Permanent or temporary?

  9. Cons • Is there a candidate for the job? • Time-consuming process • $$ • Emotionally tumultuous • What protection is really gained?

  10. Pros • Definitive authority • Family dynamics • Control over selection? • Willingness of health care providers to cooperate • Speed of responding to medical situation • General quality of care because clear advocate is involved

  11. Surrogate Selection • Availability • Willingness • Family dynamics • Ability to make decisions • Ability to make decisions rationally • Capacity to handle misc. financial expenses (e.g., travel, fax and scanning/email capacity, cell phone) • Can surrogate “live without” the patient? • Separate surrogates for personal (health) v. $$ matters?

  12. Challenges for Surrogate Decision Making • Surrogate understanding the job’s responsibilities • Legal, ethical, and health care system illiteracy • Ability and willingness to make informed decisions • Family dynamics • Influence of religion and clergy/”Praying on it” • Dependence of public funding for care limiting choices

  13. Discontinuity of care • Care often provided by strangers (e.g., hospitalists, NH Medical Director) • Records are not transmitted • Institutions driven by protocols, not patients

  14. Applying surrogate decision making standards • Substituted judgment

  15. Best interests • What are the goals? Minimize suffering or maximize likelihood of survival? At what point do the goals of care change/transition for the individual? • Danger of overtreatment? Presumption that more is better? Medical interventions are not benign. • Special approval/oversight for EoL decisions? Formal due process for Institutional Ethics Committees? • Research participation: Compulsion to “do something” • Avoiding surrogate conflicts of interest? Are conflicting interests irrelevant?

  16. “Unbefriended” individuals • Identifying and empowering a decision maker • Applying decision making standards • Erring on the side of overtreatment

  17. Policy Issues • How difficult should guardianship/conservatorship be? Protection/overprotection balance? Does legal process actually make a difference? • When the system becomes too complex and taxing, are families discouraged from participating in the system, resulting in fewer protections for the special needs individual?

  18. Starting presumption? • Vulnerability, need for protection, abuse and neglect as the natural state of nature? • Adversarial orientation • Family (or other) is well-intentioned, abuse and neglect are the exception? • Supportive, therapeutic orientation

  19. Discussion?

More Related