{"title":"Surrogate Wars: The \"Best Interest Values\" Hierarchy & End-of-Life Conflicts with Surrogate Decision-Makers.","authors":"Autumn Fiester","doi":"10.1007/s10730-024-09546-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conflicts involving end-of-life care between healthcare providers (HCPs) and surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) have received sustained attention for more than a quarter of a century, with early studies demonstrating a frequency of HCP-SDM conflict in ICUs ranging from 32-78% of all admissions (Abbott et al. 2001; Breen et al. 2001; Studdert et al. 2003; Azoulay et al. 2009). More recent studies not only acknowledge the persistence of clinical conflict in end-of-life care (Leland et al. 2017), but they have begun to focus on the ways in which these conflicts escalate to verbal or physical violence in the ICU (Slack et al. 2023; Bass et al. 2024; Berger et al. 2024; Sjöberg et al. 2024). I will argue that part of the explanation for the persistence-and even escalation-of ICU disputes is the incommensurable value systems held by many conflicting HCPs and SDMs. I will argue that a common value system among HCPs can be understood as a \"Best Interest Values\" (BIV) hierarchy, which I will argue is irreconcilable with the set of \"Life-Continuation Values\" (LCV) held by a sizable minority of families in the United States. I argue this values-conflict undergirds many ICU disputes. If I am correct that an incommensurable value system underlies many ICU conflicts, then it is not just ineffectual for HCPs to impose their BIV system on LCV families, but also wrong given the American commitment to values pluralism. I conclude that the way to navigate continuous ICU surrogate wars is for BIV-focused healthcare institutions to engage more constructively with LCV stakeholders.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-024-09546-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Conflicts involving end-of-life care between healthcare providers (HCPs) and surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) have received sustained attention for more than a quarter of a century, with early studies demonstrating a frequency of HCP-SDM conflict in ICUs ranging from 32-78% of all admissions (Abbott et al. 2001; Breen et al. 2001; Studdert et al. 2003; Azoulay et al. 2009). More recent studies not only acknowledge the persistence of clinical conflict in end-of-life care (Leland et al. 2017), but they have begun to focus on the ways in which these conflicts escalate to verbal or physical violence in the ICU (Slack et al. 2023; Bass et al. 2024; Berger et al. 2024; Sjöberg et al. 2024). I will argue that part of the explanation for the persistence-and even escalation-of ICU disputes is the incommensurable value systems held by many conflicting HCPs and SDMs. I will argue that a common value system among HCPs can be understood as a "Best Interest Values" (BIV) hierarchy, which I will argue is irreconcilable with the set of "Life-Continuation Values" (LCV) held by a sizable minority of families in the United States. I argue this values-conflict undergirds many ICU disputes. If I am correct that an incommensurable value system underlies many ICU conflicts, then it is not just ineffectual for HCPs to impose their BIV system on LCV families, but also wrong given the American commitment to values pluralism. I conclude that the way to navigate continuous ICU surrogate wars is for BIV-focused healthcare institutions to engage more constructively with LCV stakeholders.
医疗保健提供者(hcp)和代理决策者(SDMs)之间涉及临终关怀的冲突已经受到了超过四分之一世纪的持续关注,早期研究表明,icu中HCP-SDM冲突的频率在所有入院患者的32-78%之间(Abbott等人,2001;Breen et al. 2001;student et al. 2003;Azoulay et al. 2009)。最近的研究不仅承认临终关怀中临床冲突的持续存在(Leland等人,2017),而且他们已经开始关注这些冲突在ICU中升级为语言或身体暴力的方式(Slack等人,2023;Bass et al. 2024;Berger et al. 2024;Sjöberg et al. 2024)。我认为ICU纠纷持续甚至升级的部分原因是许多相互冲突的hcp和sdm所持有的不可比较的价值体系。我认为,hcp之间的共同价值体系可以理解为“最佳利益价值观”(BIV)层次结构,我认为这与美国相当少数家庭所持有的“生命延续价值观”(LCV)是不可调和的。我认为这种价值观冲突是ICU许多争议的基础。如果我是正确的,一种不可通约的价值体系是许多ICU冲突的基础,那么hcp将他们的BIV体系强加给LCV家庭不仅是无效的,而且考虑到美国对价值观多元化的承诺也是错误的。我的结论是,应对持续的ICU替代战争的方法是让以hiv为重点的医疗机构与LCV利益相关者进行更具建设性的接触。
期刊介绍:
HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors