Capacity, Choice, and the Refused Dialysis
Ms. Okafor, 58, has ESRD and has been on hemodialysis three times weekly for two years. She has bipolar disorder, currently stable on medication, and mild depression. She tells you she wants to stop dialysis. Her nephrologist says she is 'depressed and not thinking clearly' and asks you to arrange a psychiatric hold to 'get her to continue.' You assess her: she is alert, oriented, groomed, describes her reasoning clearly (she is exhausted, has watched two friends die on dialysis, wants to spend her remaining time at home with her sister), and states she understands that stopping means death within weeks. She denies suicidal intent and says, 'I want to live what's left, not die now.' Her sister confirms she has been consistent in this wish for months.
1. Does this patient have capacity to refuse dialysis, and how do you justify your conclusion?
Read the worked answer
Likely yes, she has capacity for this decision. Capacity is decision-specific and assessed on four elements: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and expression of a choice.
- Understanding: she accurately states that stopping dialysis will lead to death within weeks.
- Appreciation: she applies it to herself - 'I want to live what's left, not die now' shows she sees the consequence as hers, not abstract.
- Reasoning: her rationale (exhaustion, witnessed suffering, desire for time at home with her sister) is coherent and consistent over months.
- Choice: she clearly expresses it.
Having bipolar disorder or depression does not automatically negate capacity. The nephrologist's framing conflates psychiatric diagnosis with incapacity. Document the four elements explicitly and note the sister's corroboration of consistency.
Judgment point: the exam tests whether you can separate 'decision I disagree with' from 'decision made without capacity.' They are not the same.
2. The nephrologist asks you to arrange a psychiatric hold to compel treatment. What is your response and action?
Read the worked answer
Decline to arrange a hold. An involuntary hold requires imminent danger to self or others or grave disability under the applicable standard - not disagreement with a medical recommendation. Here she denies suicidal intent, is not acutely psychotic or manic, and her choice is an informed refusal of a life-sustaining treatment, which competent adults may make.
Actions instead:
- Document your capacity assessment with the four elements and the sister's corroboration.
- Offer, don't impose: a palliative care consult, a psychiatry check-in to confirm mood stability (framed as support, not gatekeeping), and a goals-of-care conversation.
- Communicate respectfully with the nephrologist: state the assessment, the legal basis for honoring a capacitated refusal, and invite a second opinion if he disagrees.
- Follow organizational process if there is a dispute - ethics consult is the appropriate channel, not a hold.
Judgment point: advocacy here means protecting the patient's autonomy from a well-intentioned but coercive response.
3. What care plan do you build for her remaining weeks?
Read the worked answer
Shift the plan from curative to comfort-focused and goal-aligned:
- Symptom management: anticipate uremic symptoms (fatigue, nausea, pruritus, dyspnea) and arrange palliative or hospice involvement early, not at crisis.
- Setting: honor home with sister; confirm caregiver support and respite.
- Psychiatric continuity: keep bipolar medications and monitoring; untreated mood instability would undermine the very autonomy we protected.
- Advance care planning: document her wishes, code status, and surrogate (sister) while she has capacity.
- Team alignment: brief the dialysis team so she is not re-pressured at each session.
Reasoning standard: respecting refusal does not mean abandoning care - it means changing the goal. The plan must be as active as the treatment plan was, just aimed at comfort and her stated priorities.