Your Medical Mind_ How to Decide What Is Right for You - Jerome Groopman [128]
195 The comprehensive review of surrogate decision making: David Wendler, Annette Rid, “Systematic review: The effect on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others,” Ann Intern Med 154 (2011), pp. 336–346.
195 Ethical principles involved in surrogate decision making: Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Linda L. Emanuel, “Proxy decision making for incompetent patients: An ethical and empirical analysis,” JAMA 267 (1992), pp. 2067–2071; Alexia M. Torke, G. Caleb Alexander, John Lantos, “Substituted judgment: The limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making,” JGIM 23 (2008), pp. 1514–1517.
196 The research by Dr. Torke on the primary factor in physician decision making : Alexia M. Torke et al., “Physicians’ views on the importance of patient preferences in surrogate decision-making,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 58 (2010), pp. 533–538.
199 Further assessment of which principles surrogates rely on to make choices for incapacitated patients: Karen B. Hirschman, Jennifer M. Kapo, Jason H. T. Karlawish, “Why doesn’t a family member of a person with advanced dementia use a substituted judgment when making a decision for that person?” American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 14 (2006), pp. 659–667; Robert M. Arnold, John Kellum, “Moral justifications for surrogate decision making in the intensive care unit: Implications and limitations,” Critical Care Medicine 31 (2003), pp. S347—S353.
199 Further analysis of how physicians weigh patient autonomy: Timothy E. Quill, Howard Brody, “Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: Finding a balance between physician power and patient choice,” Ann Intern Med 125 (1996), pp. 763–769.
199 The potential limitation of the narrative approach is it does not provide a ready way to resolve disagreements about which treatments to select and which to forgo between surrogates and the doctors or among different surrogates. Furthermore, Dr. Torke points out there is no “objective scale for judging one family member’s narrative is superior to another’s.” See Alexia M. Torke, G. Caleb Alexander, John Lantos, “Substituted judgment: The limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making,” JGIM 23 (2008), pp. 1514–1517.
203 Chris Klug’s story: “Transplant survivor,” www.chrisklug.com
205 The study from the United Kingdom on futility in the intensive care unit: Simon Atkinson et al., “Identification of futility in intensive care,” Lancet 344 (1994), pp. 1203–1206. Different metrics to try to determine futility: “Consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Ethics Committee regarding futile and other possibly inadvisable treatment,” Critical Care Medicine 5 (1997), pp. 887–891; European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Consensus Conference, “Predicting outcome in ICU patients,” Intensive Care Medicine 20 (1994), pp. 390–397. The research from Paris on various patients considered for ICU admission and physician inability to accurately predict the outcome: Guillaume Thiery et al., “Outcome of cancer patients considered for intensive care unit admission: A hospital-wide prospective study,” JCO 23 (2005), pp. 4406–4413. The study was conducted at Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, France, which has a large population of cancer patients. Among those predicted to die very soon, 26 percent were still alive 30 days later and 17 percent were alive 180 days later, clearly indicating that their prognosis was not so poor as to deny them care in the ICU. Similarly, cancer patients who were considered too well to benefit from ICU care had a death rate of 21 percent 30 days later, suggesting that they might have