title: Decisions and Authority.
abstract: This issue of the Hastings Center Report (January-February 2017) features three articles exploring aspects of decision-making for others. In the first two, the focus is on the limits of surrogate decision-makers' authority when the surrogates' judgments about a patient's treatment conflict with the physicians'. If a physician decides that a patient will not benefit from CPR, for example, but the patient's surrogate insists on it, is the physician obliged to proceed with the procedure? Or can the physician, pointing to a duty to provide good care to the patient and not to cause the patient to suffer, get a do-not-resuscitate order for the patient-even in the face of the surrogate's objections? These are the questions that animate the first article, in which a group of authors report on a policy implemented at Massachusetts General Hospital to help doctors who face this dilemma. The second article, by physician Jeffrey Berger, flips the questions. If a physician decides that a patient's intractable suffering requires palliative sedation, may the surrogate prevent it anyway? Or can the physician, pointing to a duty to alleviate the suffering, administer palliative sedation even in the face of the surrogate's objections? Such circumstances, says Berger, show the need for conceptual work delineating the limits of surrogates' authority and practical work on mechanisms for doing so-protecting patients and giving physicians a clear route to follow.
authors.forename: Gregory E
authors.initials: GE
authors.lastname: Kaebnick
mesh_terms: D000067697:Adolescent Health / Q000941:ethics; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D059408:Pain Management / Q000941:ethics; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000941:ethics; D010819:Physician's Role / Q000523:psychology*; D010820:Physicians / Q000523:psychology*; D019727:Proxy / Q000523:psychology*; D016414:Resuscitation Orders / Q000941:ethics