Relatives' knowledge of decision making in intensive care

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 459-462

  Booth, M G ^a   Doherty, P ^a   Fairgrieve, R ^a   Kinsella, J ^b   Laurie, Graeme ^c  

^a GLASGOW ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CUSTODY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTENSIVE CARE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LAW; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT INFORMATION; PROGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELATIVE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; LEGAL APPROACH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

ADULT; ADVANCE CARE PLANNING; AWARENESS; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY; HUMANS; INTENSIVE CARE; LIFE SUPPORT CARE; MENTAL COMPETENCY; PROFESSIONAL-FAMILY RELATIONS; SCOTLAND; THIRD-PARTY CONSENT;

EID: 6444240306     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.000802     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] 2 All England Reports 545.
2. Mason JK, McCall Smith RA. Law and Medical Ethics (5th ed) Edinburgh: Butterworths, 1999:246-248.
3. Re T (adult: refusal of medical treatment)[ 1992] 4 All England Reports 649 at 653.
4. Law Commission. Mental Incapacity Law Com No 231), London: HMSO 1995.
5. Scottish Law Commission, Report on Incapable Adults, Edinburgh 1995.
6. Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, Edinburgh: HMSO 2000.
7. Tomlinson T, Howe K, Notman M, et al. An empirical study of proxy consent for elderly persons. Gerontologist 1990;30:54-64.
8. Seckler AB, Meier DE, Mulvihill M, et al. Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions? Ann Intern Med 1991;115:92-8.
9. Layde PM, Beam CA, Broste SK, et al. Surrogates' predictions of seriously ill patients' resuscitation preferences. Arch Fam Med 1995;4:518-23.
10. Sulmasy DP, Haller K, Terry PB. More talk, less paper predicting the accuracy of substituted judgments. Am J Med 1994; 96:432-8.
11. Sulmasy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, et al. The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:621-9.
12. Mattimore TJ, Wenger NS, Desbiens NA, et al. Surrogate and physician understanding of patients' preferences for living permanently in a nursing home. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997;45 818-24.
13. Suhl J, Simons P, Reedy T, et al. Myth of substituted judgment. Surrogate decision making regarding life support is unreliable. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:90-6
14. Baergen R. Revisiting the substituted judgment standard. J Clin Ethics 1995;6:30-8.