Premed · Premed · Medical Ethics Humanities
Lecture 11: End-of-Life Care: Advance Directives and Surrogate Decision-Making
Foundations of Medical Ethics and the Health Humanities
Learning Objectives
By the end of this lecture, students will be able to:
- Explain the ethical principles underlying end-of-life decision-making
- Describe the types and legal functions of advance directives
- Apply the substituted judgment and best interest standards to surrogate decision-making
- Identify common barriers to advance care planning and strategies to overcome them
- Analyze the concept of medical futility and its ethical implications
Lecture Content
I. The Ethical Framework for End-of-Life Decisions
Death in the modern era looks fundamentally different from death in previous centuries. Most deaths now occur in institutions -- hospitals, ICUs, and long-term care facilities -- rather than at home. Modern technology can sustain biological life far beyond the point where meaningful recovery is possible, creating a gap between what medicine can do and what medicine should do.
Several core principles guide end-of-life decision-making. Autonomy means that competent patients have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, including ventilators, dialysis, nutrition, and hydration. Beneficence, at end of life, may mean promoting comfort rather than cure. Non-maleficence calls for avoiding treatments that prolong suffering without benefit. And dignity demands that the patient's personhood, values, and wishes be respected as they approach death.
Several key distinctions are critical for clear thinking about end-of-life care. Withholding treatment means not starting an intervention, such as deciding not to intubate. Withdrawing treatment means stopping an intervention already in place, such as removing a ventilator. These two actions are ethically and legally equivalent, even though withdrawing treatment often feels psychologically harder. The distinction between allowing natural death and causing death is also fundamental: refusing or stopping treatment allows the underlying disease to take its course, which is fundamentally different from actively ending life.
II. Advance Directives
Advance directives are legal documents that allow individuals to express their healthcare preferences in advance of losing decision-making capacity. Three main types exist, each with distinct strengths and limitations.
A living will specifies which treatments the person does or does not want under certain conditions, such as stating that if one is in a persistent vegetative state, one does not want mechanical ventilation or artificial nutrition. Living wills provide clear written instructions, but they cannot anticipate every scenario, their language may be vague, and they may not reflect evolving preferences.
A durable power of attorney for healthcare, also called a healthcare proxy, designates a specific person to make healthcare decisions on the patient's behalf if they lose capacity. Its strength lies in the fact that a trusted person can respond to unanticipated situations with knowledge of the patient's values. Its limitation is that the proxy may not know the patient's wishes or may bring their own biases and emotional burdens to the decision.
POLST or MOLST (Physician or Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) are actionable medical orders -- not just wishes -- designed for seriously ill patients. They cover CPR, mechanical ventilation, hospitalization, antibiotics, and artificial nutrition, and they travel with the patient across care settings. Unlike living wills, POLST orders are designed for patients who are already seriously ill, not for the general population.
Advance care planning (ACP) should be understood as a process rather than a form-filling exercise. It involves reflecting on values, discussing preferences with family and healthcare providers, and documenting wishes. ACP should be revisited regularly, especially after major health changes. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, developed by Ariadne Labs, provides a structured approach for clinicians to discuss goals of care.

III. Surrogate Decision-Making
When a patient lacks capacity and has not completed an advance directive, a surrogate must be identified. The hierarchy of surrogates varies by jurisdiction but typically follows this order: court-appointed guardian, designated healthcare proxy, spouse or domestic partner, adult children, parents, adult siblings, and other close relatives or friends who know the patient's values.
Two standards guide surrogate decision-making. The substituted judgment standard asks the surrogate to decide as the patient would have decided, based on known values and prior statements. The guiding question is "What would the patient want?" rather than "What do I want for the patient?" This requires knowledge of the patient's values, beliefs, and prior expressed wishes. The best interest standard applies when the patient's wishes are unknown: the surrogate should choose the option that best promotes the patient's well-being, considering benefits and burdens of treatment, quality of life, and relief of suffering.
In practice, surrogates often conflate their own values with the patient's, or make decisions based on guilt, hope, or family dynamics rather than the patient's wishes. Supporting surrogates is therefore essential. Surrogates experience significant emotional burden, including guilt, anxiety, grief, and family conflict. Clinicians can help by framing decisions as "honoring what [patient name] would have wanted" rather than "choosing to let them die." Interdisciplinary support from social work, chaplaincy, palliative care, and ethics consultation is invaluable.
IV. Medical Futility
A treatment is considered futile when it cannot achieve the goals of care. Futility takes several forms. Quantitative futility means the treatment has an extremely low probability of success, with some proposing a threshold of less than one percent. Qualitative futility means the treatment may sustain life but cannot restore a quality of life the patient would value. Physiologic futility means the treatment cannot produce the intended physiologic effect, such as when CPR cannot restore circulation in a patient with no cardiac function.
The futility debate raises difficult questions about authority. Physicians argue they should not be compelled to provide treatments that offer no medical benefit. Families argue that there is always hope and that the physician should not decide when to stop. A justice argument adds that futile treatments consume scarce resources that could benefit others.
Several legal cases have shaped the futility debate. In the Wanglie case (1991), a family insisted on continued ventilatory support for a patient in persistent vegetative state, and the court sided with the family. In the Baby K case (1994), the court ordered a hospital to provide ventilatory support for an anencephalic infant at the mother's request. In Betancourt v. Trinitas (2010), the court recognized a physician's authority not to provide futile CPR.
Many hospitals have developed institutional policies addressing futility or "non-beneficial treatment." These typically involve a multi-step process: communication with the family, ethics consultation, the option to transfer to another provider, and, as a last resort, unilateral withdrawal. The Texas Advance Directives Act (1999) provides a legal process for physicians to discontinue life-sustaining treatment over family objections, with a ten-day window for transfer.

V. Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) Orders
CPR was originally developed for otherwise healthy patients experiencing unexpected cardiac arrest. In patients with terminal illness, multi-organ failure, or advanced age, CPR has very low success rates and may cause significant harm, including rib fractures and brain damage from prolonged hypoxia.
A DNR order is a physician's order not to perform CPR if the patient's heart stops. It should be based on the patient's informed decision or the surrogate's decision in accordance with the patient's values. Critically, a DNR order does not mean "do not treat" -- all other appropriate care continues. A common misconception among families is that a DNR order means the patient will be abandoned or neglected, and clinicians should address this fear directly.
DNR orders in the operating room present a special case. The "required reconsideration" approach calls for the surgeon and anesthesiologist to discuss the DNR with the patient before surgery, allowing the patient to decide whether to suspend, maintain, or modify the order for the perioperative period.
Some institutions and ethicists prefer the term "Allow Natural Death" (AND) over "Do Not Resuscitate." This reframes the decision positively -- allowing a natural process -- rather than negatively -- not doing something -- and may facilitate more productive conversations with patients and families.
VI. Goals of Care Conversations
The most important shift in end-of-life communication is from "What treatments do you want?" to "What is most important to you?" Goals-of-care conversations involve assessing the patient's understanding of their illness and prognosis, then exploring values through questions like: What makes life worth living? What would be worse than death? What are you hoping for? What are you afraid of? Once values are clear, treatment can be aligned with goals. If the goal is comfort, aggressive ICU interventions may not align; if the goal is to survive to a daughter's wedding, a time-limited trial of treatment may be appropriate.
Palliative care should be understood as an approach rather than a place. It can be provided alongside curative treatment and focuses on relief of suffering, symptom management, and quality of life. Research by Temel and colleagues, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2010, demonstrated that early palliative care improves quality of life and may even improve survival.
