 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 July 2007 | Volume 147 Issue 1 | Pages 51-57
Advance directives promise patients a say in their future care but actually have had little effect. Many experts blame problems with completion and implementation, but the advance directive concept itself may be fundamentally flawed. Advance directives simply presuppose more control over future care than is realistic. Medical crises cannot be predicted in detail, making most prior instructions difficult to adapt, irrelevant, or even misleading. Furthermore, many proxies either do not know patients' wishes or do not pursue those wishes effectively. Thus, unexpected problems arise often to defeat advance directives, as the case in this paper illustrates. Because advance directives offer only limited benefit, advance care planning should emphasize not the completion of directives but the emotional preparation of patients and families for future crises. The existentialist Albert Camus might suggest that physicians should warn patients and families that momentous, unforeseeable decisions lie ahead. Then, when the crisis hits, physicians should provide guidance; should help make decisions despite the inevitable uncertainties; should share responsibility for those decisions; and, above all, should courageously see patients and families through the fearsome experience of dying.
Author and Article Information
From the Ecumenical Center for Religion and Health and The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.
Acknowledgments: The author thanks Lawrence Kimmel, PhD; Susan Bagby, MA; and The University of Texas Health Science Center Faculty Ethics and Humanities Journal Club, who made thoughtful suggestions about earlier drafts.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
Requests for Single Reprints: Henry S. Perkins, MD, Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900. PERSPECTIVE
Controlling Death: The False Promise of Advance Directives
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. T. Berger, E. G. DeRenzo, and J. Schwartz Surrogate Decision Making: Reconciling Ethical Theory and Clinical Practice Ann Intern Med, July 1, 2008; 149(1): 48 - 53. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. J. Simcic Can't We Improve on Advance Directives? Ann Intern Med, March 4, 2008; 148(5): 405 - 405. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Carter Can't We Improve on Advance Directives? Ann Intern Med, March 4, 2008; 148(5): 405 - 405. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Brasic and B. J. Hammes Can't We Improve on Advance Directives? Ann Intern Med, March 4, 2008; 148(5): 405 - 406. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. E. Hickman, C. P. Sabatino, A. H. Moss, and J. W. Nester The POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) Paradigm to Improve End-of-Life Care: Potential State Legal Barriers to Implementation. J. Law Med. Ethics, March 1, 2008; 36(1): 119 - 140. [PDF]
|
|
Read all Rapid Responses
Article
