Informed Consent and Surrogate Interference at the Initiation of Community-Based Palliative Care Services.

IF 1.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Palliative medicine reports Pub Date : 2024-07-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/pmr.2024.0018
John C Stys
{"title":"Informed Consent and Surrogate Interference at the Initiation of Community-Based Palliative Care Services.","authors":"John C Stys","doi":"10.1089/pmr.2024.0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Community-based palliative care (CBPC) clinicians sometimes contend with an ethically charged scenario when they encounter patients for the first time: The patient's spouse, or other loved one or caregiver, revokes the patient's valid informed consent to initiate care. While surrogates are usually motivated by protective instincts, there are other situations where surrogates act out of self-interest. This article considers whether it is ever ethically justified for an adult to revoke another adult's valid informed consent to initiate palliative care services. The article examines this scenario from three perspectives: the patient's capacity to give or relinquish informed consent, the surrogate's intent and use of substituted judgment or best interest, and the clinician's duty to provide clinical care. This ethical analysis argues that CBPC clinicians have an ethical responsibility to provide palliative care services for patients who have given valid informed consent for those services even when a surrogate acts as an interfering or oppositional force.</p>","PeriodicalId":74394,"journal":{"name":"Palliative medicine reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11262575/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative medicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2024.0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Community-based palliative care (CBPC) clinicians sometimes contend with an ethically charged scenario when they encounter patients for the first time: The patient's spouse, or other loved one or caregiver, revokes the patient's valid informed consent to initiate care. While surrogates are usually motivated by protective instincts, there are other situations where surrogates act out of self-interest. This article considers whether it is ever ethically justified for an adult to revoke another adult's valid informed consent to initiate palliative care services. The article examines this scenario from three perspectives: the patient's capacity to give or relinquish informed consent, the surrogate's intent and use of substituted judgment or best interest, and the clinician's duty to provide clinical care. This ethical analysis argues that CBPC clinicians have an ethical responsibility to provide palliative care services for patients who have given valid informed consent for those services even when a surrogate acts as an interfering or oppositional force.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社区姑息关怀服务启动时的知情同意和代理干预。
以社区为基础的姑息关怀(CBPC)临床医生在首次接触病人时,有时会遇到一种涉及伦理问题的情况:患者的配偶、其他亲人或照护者撤销了患者对启动照护的有效知情同意。虽然代治者通常出于保护本能,但在其他一些情况下,代治者也会出于自身利益行事。本文探讨了一个成年人撤销另一个成年人对启动姑息关怀服务的有效知情同意在伦理上是否合理。文章从三个角度对这一情况进行了研究:患者给予或放弃知情同意的能力、代理人的意图和使用替代判断或最佳利益,以及临床医生提供临床护理的职责。该伦理分析认为,即使在代理作为干扰或反对力量的情况下,CBPC 临床医生仍有伦理责任为已对这些服务做出有效知情同意的患者提供姑息关怀服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Characteristics, Outcomes and Factors for Place of Death in Patients Admitted to Community-Based Palliative Care Services in Shanghai China: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Nursing Practices for Dyspnea Management in Patients with Cancer Based on Monthly and Weekly Prognoses: A Multi-Site Cross-Sectional Study of Palliative Care Nurses in Japan. Is a Combination of Six Clinical Tests Useful as a Measure to Predict Short-Term Prognosis in Terminal Cancer Patients? A Prospective Observational Study in a Japanese Palliative Care Unit. The Surprise Question: Not Ready for Prime Time. Use of Nursing Support Among Nurses for Caregiver Burden in Family Caregivers of Terminally Ill Patients with Cancer in Palliative Care Units in Japan: Multisite Cross-Sectional Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1