A Capacitated 15-Year-Old, Parents Who Want “Everything,” and Unspoken Prognosis
Jada is 15 years old with cystic fibrosis. Her FEV1 is 26% of predicted, she uses nocturnal BiPAP, she is oxygen-dependent at rest, and she has been admitted three times in six months. Her parents have asked the team to “do everything,” including intubation if needed, and want her evaluated for transplant at a center five hours away. Asked separately about her own preferences, Jada says: “I've been tubed twice. I hated it. If this is it, I don't want the machine again.” Her parents have not told her that her disease is now life-limiting, saying she “isn't ready.” Jada has no cognitive impairment and no depression, though she becomes tearful and breathless when discussing the future. A family meeting is scheduled for tomorrow morning.
1. How would you assess Jada's decision-making capacity, and what weight should her stated preference carry?
Read the worked answer
Capacity is decision-specific, so assess it against this decision. Test the four elements in short chunks, with rest breaks for her breathlessness: can she understand that intubation in the setting of an FEV1 of 26% may not be reversible and may lead to prolonged ventilation; does she appreciate that this applies to her, not just to patients in general; can she reason with the trade-offs; and can she express a stable choice? Use teach-back - “tell me in your own words what you understood from what I just said.” Check that the choice is consistent over time and not driven by untreated anxiety, delirium, or family coercion.
Ethically, her view is central even if it is not legally controlling. In most U.S. jurisdictions a 15-year-old cannot independently refuse life-sustaining treatment unless the mature-minor doctrine or emancipation applies, so her dissent does not automatically decide the matter. But intubation here is not clearly beneficial - it is a treatment of uncertain outcome with a high burden that she has already experienced twice. Overriding a capacitated adolescent to impose that is very hard to justify. The default should be that her voice is decisive unless there is a compelling countervailing reason, and that any override goes through ethics consultation, not unilateral clinician or parental authority.
2. Design tomorrow's meeting: who should be there, how should it open, and how do you handle the disclosure gap?
Read the worked answer
Before the meeting: brief the team on a single consistent message; confirm Jada wants to attend and how much she wants to lead; arrange the palliative care clinician, social worker, and a transplant representative (by phone if needed); book a room with time and seating for everyone; decide who speaks and who takes notes.
Open with her: “Jada, what is your understanding of where your lungs are now, and what has this year been like for you?” Then ask the parents what they understand and what they most fear. Ask permission before sharing difficult information: “Would it be all right if I said out loud what we are all worried about?”
Address the disclosure gap directly but without shaming. Say something like: “You have been protecting her, and I understand why. She has already told us she knows how sick she is. Silence right now is likely to leave her feeling alone with it rather than protected.” Then let Jada decide how much detail she wants.
Separate the questions that are being merged: intubation for a reversible exacerbation, versus long-term ventilation, versus transplant candidacy and travel. Each has different burdens and different answers. End with a summary, a named decision-maker for each question, and a review date. Document who said what.
3. The parents remain firm that Jada must be intubated if she deteriorates. What are your next steps?
Read the worked answer
Do not force a resolution at the table. Name the disagreement plainly and keep the relationship: “We are not agreeing yet, and I do not want to pretend otherwise. I also do not want to abandon you while we work it out.”
Then, in order:
- Confirm and document the capacity assessment and Jada's expressed wishes verbatim, with dates and who was present.
- Request ethics consultation early, not as a threat but as a resource: “I want a second set of eyes on a decision this hard.”
- Offer a second medical opinion, particularly from the transplant center, on whether intubation would plausibly change her trajectory. This can move the conversation from values conflict to shared facts.
- Look for a time-limited trial both sides can live with - for example, intubation only for a discrete, reversible precipitant with explicit criteria for extubation and reassessment at 48–72 hours.
- Distinguish futility from disagreement. If the team judges intubation physiologically futile, follow institutional policy. If it is merely non-preferred, parental authority generally prevails.
- Continue maximal symptom management throughout, and keep a named clinician following her so that no one experiences the dispute as abandonment.