This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bailey, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bailey, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Decision Making in Acute Care: A practical framework supporting the ‘best interests’ Principle

School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Waterfront Campus, 1 Gheringhap St, Geelong 3217, Victoria, Australia, susan.bailey{at}deakin.edu.au

The best interests principle is commonly utilized in acute care settings to assist with decision making about life-saving and life-sustaining treatment. This ethical principle demands that the decision maker refers to some conception of quality of life that is relevant to the individual patient. The aim of this article is to describe the factors that are required to be incorporated into an account of quality of life that will provide a morally justifiable basis for making a judgement about the future quality of life, and therefore the best interests, of critically ill patients who are mentally incompetent. This account consists of three major components - pain and suffering, body functioning, and autonomy - and is applicable in situations where very limited information is available to guide decision making. This framework helps to make decisions about the provision of life-saving treatment that are as consistent as possible in all patient situations.

Key Words: autonomy • decision making • principles • quality of life • suffering

References

• Fins JJ. Rethinking disorders of consciousness: new research and its implications . Hastings Cent Rep 2005; 35(2): 22-24 .[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Berner K, Ives G, Astin F. Critical care nurses’ perceptions about their involvement in significant decisions regarding patient care . Aust Crit Care 2004; 17: 123-131 .[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Oberle K, Hughes D. Doctors’ and nurses’ perceptions of ethical problems in end-of-life decisions . J Adv Nurs 2001; 33: 707-715 .[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Buchanan A, Brock D. Deciding for others . Milbank Q 1986; 64: 17-95 .[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Bailey S. Ethically defensible decision-making in health care: challenges to traditional practice . Aust Health Rev 2001; 24: 27-31 .[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Morreim EH. Computing the quality of life. In: Agich GJ, Begley CE eds. The price of health. Reidel , 1986: 45-69.
• Scanlon T. Value, desire, and quality of life. In: Nussbaum M, Sen A eds. The quality of life. Clarendon Press , 1993: 188-189.
• van Hooft S. The meanings of suffering . Hastings Cent Rep 1998; 28(5): 13-19 .[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Daniels N. Just health care. Cambridge University Press , 1985.
• Holbrook TL, Anderson JP, Sieber WJ, Browner D, Hoyt DB. Trauma Recovery Project, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego Medical Center . J Trauma 1999; 46: 765-773 .[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Young R. Personal autonomy: beyond negative and positive liberty. Croom Helm , 1986.
• Stirrat GM, Gill R. Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill . J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 127-130 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Kukla R. Conscientious autonomy: displacing decisions in health care . Hastings Cent Rep 2005; 35(2): 34-44 .[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Cassell E. The nature of suffering. Oxford University Press , 1991.
• Beste J. Instilling hope and respecting patient autonomy: reconciling apparently conflicting duties . Bioethics 2005; 19: 215-231 .[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Bayertz K. Moral consensus as a social and philosophical problem. In: Bayertz K ed. The concept of moral consensus. Kluwer , 1994: 1-15.
• Kuhse H. New reproductive technologies: ethical conflict and the problems of consensus. In: Bayertz K ed. The concept of moral consensus. Kluwer , 1994: 75-96.

Nursing Ethics, Vol. 13, No. 3, 284-291 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0969733006ne864oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bailey, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bailey, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?