Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Critical Care 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Viewpoint

New perspectives on substituted relational autonomy for shared decision-making in critical care

Authors: Nicola Grignoli, Valentina Di Bernardo, Roberto Malacrida

Published in: Critical Care | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

In critical care when unconscious patients are assisted by machines, humanity is mainly ensured by respect for autonomy, realised through advance directives or, mostly, reconstructed by cooperation with relatives. Whereas patient-centred approaches are widely discussed and fostered, managing communication in complex, especially end-of-life, situations in open intensive care units is still a point of debate and a possible source of conflict and moral distress. In particular, healthcare teams are often sceptical about the growing role of families in shared decision-making and their ability to represent patients’ preferences. New perspectives on substituted relational autonomy are needed for overcoming this climate of suspicion and are discussed through recent literature in the field of medical ethics.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Brown SM, Beesley SJ, Hopkins RO. Humanizing intensive care: theory, evidence, and possibilities. In: Vincent JL, editor. Annual update in intensive care and emergency medicine 2016. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 405–20.CrossRef Brown SM, Beesley SJ, Hopkins RO. Humanizing intensive care: theory, evidence, and possibilities. In: Vincent JL, editor. Annual update in intensive care and emergency medicine 2016. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 405–20.CrossRef
2.
3.
go back to reference Rodriguez-Osorio CA, Dominguez-Cherit G. Medical decision making: paternalism versus patient-centered (autonomous) care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14(6):708–13.CrossRef Rodriguez-Osorio CA, Dominguez-Cherit G. Medical decision making: paternalism versus patient-centered (autonomous) care. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14(6):708–13.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Wendler D. The theory and practice of surrogate decision-making. Hast Cent Rep. 2017;47(1):29–31.CrossRef Wendler D. The theory and practice of surrogate decision-making. Hast Cent Rep. 2017;47(1):29–31.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rubin MA. The collaborative autonomy model of medical decision-making. Neurocrit Care. 2014;20(2):311–8.CrossRef Rubin MA. The collaborative autonomy model of medical decision-making. Neurocrit Care. 2014;20(2):311–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Giacomini M, Cook D, DeJean D. Life support decision making in critical care: Identifying and appraising the qualitative research evidence. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(4):1475–82.CrossRef Giacomini M, Cook D, DeJean D. Life support decision making in critical care: Identifying and appraising the qualitative research evidence. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(4):1475–82.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Silveira MJ, Kim SYH, Langa KM. Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1211–8.CrossRef Silveira MJ, Kim SYH, Langa KM. Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1211–8.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gevers S, Dute J, Nys H. Surrogate decision-making for incompetent elderly patients: The role of informal representatives. Eur J Health Law. 2012;19(1):61–8.CrossRef Gevers S, Dute J, Nys H. Surrogate decision-making for incompetent elderly patients: The role of informal representatives. Eur J Health Law. 2012;19(1):61–8.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Tulsky JA. Beyond advance directives: importance of communication skills at the end of life. JAMA. 2005;294(3):359–65.CrossRef Tulsky JA. Beyond advance directives: importance of communication skills at the end of life. JAMA. 2005;294(3):359–65.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Tillyard ARJ. Ethics review: ‘Living wills’ and intensive care--an overview of the American experience. Crit Care. 2007;11(4):219.CrossRef Tillyard ARJ. Ethics review: ‘Living wills’ and intensive care--an overview of the American experience. Crit Care. 2007;11(4):219.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Azoulay E, Timsit J-F, Sprung CL, Soares M, Rusinová K, Lafabrie A, et al. Prevalence and factors of intensive care unit conflicts: the conflicus study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180(9):853–60.CrossRef Azoulay E, Timsit J-F, Sprung CL, Soares M, Rusinová K, Lafabrie A, et al. Prevalence and factors of intensive care unit conflicts: the conflicus study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180(9):853–60.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lobo SM, De Simoni FHB, Jakob SM, Estella A, Vadi S, Bluethgen A, et al. Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life support in the ICU: a worldwide perspective. Chest. 2017;152(2):321–9.CrossRef Lobo SM, De Simoni FHB, Jakob SM, Estella A, Vadi S, Bluethgen A, et al. Decision-making on withholding or withdrawing life support in the ICU: a worldwide perspective. Chest. 2017;152(2):321–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Varelius J. The value of autonomy in medical ethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(3):377–88.CrossRef Varelius J. The value of autonomy in medical ethics. Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(3):377–88.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Chaitin E, Stiller R, Jacobs S, Hershl J, Grogen T, Weinberg J. Physician-patient relationship in the intensive care unit: Erosion of the sacred trust? Crit Care Med. 2003;31(5 Suppl):S367–72.CrossRef Chaitin E, Stiller R, Jacobs S, Hershl J, Grogen T, Weinberg J. Physician-patient relationship in the intensive care unit: Erosion of the sacred trust? Crit Care Med. 2003;31(5 Suppl):S367–72.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference White DB, Malvar G, Karr J, Lo B, Curtis JR. Expanding the paradigm of the physician's role in surrogate decision-making: an empirically derived framework. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):743–50.CrossRef White DB, Malvar G, Karr J, Lo B, Curtis JR. Expanding the paradigm of the physician's role in surrogate decision-making: an empirically derived framework. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):743–50.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Donchin A. Understanding autonomy relationally: toward a reconfiguration of bioethical principles. J Med Philos. 2001;26(4):365–86.CrossRef Donchin A. Understanding autonomy relationally: toward a reconfiguration of bioethical principles. J Med Philos. 2001;26(4):365–86.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dove ES, Kelly SE, Lucivero F, Machirori M, Dheensa S, Prainsack B. Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research? Clin Ethics. 2017;12(3):150–65.CrossRef Dove ES, Kelly SE, Lucivero F, Machirori M, Dheensa S, Prainsack B. Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research? Clin Ethics. 2017;12(3):150–65.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Benbenishty JS, Bülow H-H. Intensive care medicine in 2050: Multidisciplinary communication in−/outside ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(5):636–8.CrossRef Benbenishty JS, Bülow H-H. Intensive care medicine in 2050: Multidisciplinary communication in−/outside ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(5):636–8.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference van Mol MMC, Kompanje EJO, Benoit DD, Bakker J, Nijkamp MD. The prevalence of compassion fatigue and burnout among healthcare professionals in intensive care units: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136955.CrossRef van Mol MMC, Kompanje EJO, Benoit DD, Bakker J, Nijkamp MD. The prevalence of compassion fatigue and burnout among healthcare professionals in intensive care units: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136955.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wendler D, Rid A. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(5):336–46.CrossRef Wendler D, Rid A. Systematic review: the effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(5):336–46.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Kon AA, Davidson JE, Morrison W, Danis M, White DB. American Thoracic Society. Shared decision making in ICUs: an American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy statement. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(1):188–201.CrossRef Kon AA, Davidson JE, Morrison W, Danis M, White DB. American Thoracic Society. Shared decision making in ICUs: an American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy statement. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(1):188–201.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Pope TM. Legal fundamentals of surrogate decision making. Chest. 2012;141(4):1074–81.CrossRef Pope TM. Legal fundamentals of surrogate decision making. Chest. 2012;141(4):1074–81.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Visser M, Deliens L, Houttekier D. Physician-related barriers to communication and patient- and family-centred decision-making towards the end of life in intensive care: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):604.CrossRef Visser M, Deliens L, Houttekier D. Physician-related barriers to communication and patient- and family-centred decision-making towards the end of life in intensive care: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):604.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Curtis JR, Vincent J-L. Ethics and end-of-life care for adults in the intensive care unit. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1347–53.CrossRef Curtis JR, Vincent J-L. Ethics and end-of-life care for adults in the intensive care unit. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1347–53.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Johnson SK, Bautista CA, Hong SY, Weissfeld L, White DB. An empirical study of surrogates’ preferred level of control over value-laden life support decisions in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(7):915–21.CrossRef Johnson SK, Bautista CA, Hong SY, Weissfeld L, White DB. An empirical study of surrogates’ preferred level of control over value-laden life support decisions in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(7):915–21.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Oczkowski SJW, Chung H-O, Hanvey L, Mbuagbaw L, You JJ. Communication tools for end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2016;20:97.CrossRef Oczkowski SJW, Chung H-O, Hanvey L, Mbuagbaw L, You JJ. Communication tools for end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2016;20:97.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Giannini A, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Latour JM. What's new in ICU visiting policies: can we continue to keep the doors closed? Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(5):730–3.CrossRef Giannini A, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Latour JM. What's new in ICU visiting policies: can we continue to keep the doors closed? Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(5):730–3.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. How should treatment decisions be made for incapacitated patients, and why? PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e35.CrossRef Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D. How should treatment decisions be made for incapacitated patients, and why? PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e35.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference White DB, Ernecoff N, Buddadhumaruk P, Hong S, Weissfeld L, Curtis JR, et al. Prevalence of and factors related to discordance about prognosis between physicians and surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients. JAMA. 2016;315(19):2086–94.CrossRef White DB, Ernecoff N, Buddadhumaruk P, Hong S, Weissfeld L, Curtis JR, et al. Prevalence of and factors related to discordance about prognosis between physicians and surrogate decision makers of critically ill patients. JAMA. 2016;315(19):2086–94.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Liu V, Read JL, Scruth E, Cheng E. Visitation policies and practices in US ICUs. Crit Care. 2013;17(2):R71.CrossRef Liu V, Read JL, Scruth E, Cheng E. Visitation policies and practices in US ICUs. Crit Care. 2013;17(2):R71.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Wendler D, Wesley B, Pavlick M, Rid A. A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: what do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor? J Med Ethics. 2016;42(4):235–41.CrossRef Wendler D, Wesley B, Pavlick M, Rid A. A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: what do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor? J Med Ethics. 2016;42(4):235–41.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Di Bernardo V, Grignoli N, Marazia C, Andreotti J, Perren A, Malacrida R. Sharing intimacy in “open” intensive care units. J Crit Care. 2015;30(5):866–70.CrossRef Di Bernardo V, Grignoli N, Marazia C, Andreotti J, Perren A, Malacrida R. Sharing intimacy in “open” intensive care units. J Crit Care. 2015;30(5):866–70.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Boyd EA, Lo B, Evans LR, Malvar G, Apatira L, Luce JM, et al. “It's not just what the doctor tells me:” factors that influence surrogate decision-makers’ perceptions of prognosis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(5):1270–5.CrossRef Boyd EA, Lo B, Evans LR, Malvar G, Apatira L, Luce JM, et al. “It's not just what the doctor tells me:” factors that influence surrogate decision-makers’ perceptions of prognosis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(5):1270–5.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Stoljar N. Informed consent and relational conceptions of autonomy. J Med Philos. 2011;36(4):375–84.CrossRef Stoljar N. Informed consent and relational conceptions of autonomy. J Med Philos. 2011;36(4):375–84.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Berger JT. Patients' interests in their family members' well-being: an overlooked, fundamental consideration within substituted judgments. J Clin Ethics. 2005;16(1):3–10.PubMed Berger JT. Patients' interests in their family members' well-being: an overlooked, fundamental consideration within substituted judgments. J Clin Ethics. 2005;16(1):3–10.PubMed
36.
go back to reference Donchin A. Autonomy, interdependence, and assisted suicide: respecting boundaries/crossing lines. Bioethics. 2000;14(3):187–204.CrossRef Donchin A. Autonomy, interdependence, and assisted suicide: respecting boundaries/crossing lines. Bioethics. 2000;14(3):187–204.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Azoulay E, Chaize M, Kentish-Barnes N. Involvement of ICU families in decisions: fine-tuning the partnership. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:37.CrossRef Azoulay E, Chaize M, Kentish-Barnes N. Involvement of ICU families in decisions: fine-tuning the partnership. Ann Intensive Care. 2014;4:37.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference O’Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.CrossRef O’Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Marx G, Owusu Boakye S, Jung A, Nauck F. Trust and autonomy in end of life: considering the interrelation between patients and their relatives. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2014;8(4):394–8.CrossRef Marx G, Owusu Boakye S, Jung A, Nauck F. Trust and autonomy in end of life: considering the interrelation between patients and their relatives. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2014;8(4):394–8.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Parks SM, Winter L, Santana AJ, Parker B, Diamond JJ, Rose M, et al. Family factors in end-of-life decision-making: family conflict and proxy relationship. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(2):179–84.CrossRef Parks SM, Winter L, Santana AJ, Parker B, Diamond JJ, Rose M, et al. Family factors in end-of-life decision-making: family conflict and proxy relationship. J Palliat Med. 2011;14(2):179–84.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
New perspectives on substituted relational autonomy for shared decision-making in critical care
Authors
Nicola Grignoli
Valentina Di Bernardo
Roberto Malacrida
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Critical Care / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2187-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Critical Care 1/2018 Go to the issue