The Hospital Ethics Committee and the Family's Request
A 71-year-old patient with advanced dementia and a recent severe stroke is on a ventilator in an intensive care unit. The medical team judges that continued ventilation offers no realistic chance of recovery and recommends withdrawal. The patient's adult daughter, who holds enduring medical power of attorney, insists her father 'would want everything done' and produces a handwritten note from six years ago in which he wrote, 'I never want to be a burden.' The treating physician argues the note is irrelevant because it was written before the stroke and says the daughter is 'in denial.' A junior nurse observes that the daughter has not been offered a formal meeting with the palliative care team. The committee must decide whether to accept the family's request to continue treatment, and one member asks whether the question is really about what the patient would have wanted or about who has the authority to decide.
1. Identify the central normative question in this case and distinguish it from the empirical questions the committee also faces.
Read the worked answer
The central normative question is: what ought the committee to do - accept the daughter's request, override it, or defer pending further process? This is a question about justified action, not about predicting outcomes.
Empirical questions include: What is the actual prognosis? What did the handwritten note most plausibly mean in context? Is the daughter genuinely acting on her father's values or on her own distress? Would a palliative care meeting change her position?
These must be separated because evidence bears on the empirical questions but cannot by itself settle the normative one. Even if we knew the prognosis with certainty, we would still need a principle (respect for autonomy, best interests, or substituted judgement) to say what follows. Conversely, no ethical principle tells us what the prognosis is. A common exam error is to answer the normative question by citing a statistic; the statistic only constrains which normative options are live.
2. The physician calls the daughter 'in denial.' Evaluate whether this characterisation is relevant to the committee's decision.
Read the worked answer
It is relevant only in a limited, evidential way - and dangerous if used as a shortcut.
Why it might matter: if the daughter's judgement is impaired by grief, her claim to be expressing her father's wishes carries less epistemic weight. Advance directives and substituted judgement depend on the surrogate accurately representing the patient's values, so evidence about the surrogate's reliability is pertinent.
Why it is dangerous: the label 'in denial' is a psychological characterisation that does not engage with the content of her claim. She may be grieving and correct that her father valued independence. Dismissing her on the basis of a character judgement also violates a procedural norm - the committee should weigh reasons, not diagnose motives. The nurse's observation that she was never offered a palliative care meeting suggests the process, not the daughter, is the weak link.
A defensible conclusion: the label should be set aside as a reason, but the underlying concern (is her interpretation of the note reliable?) should be tested through a proper structured conversation rather than asserted.
3. Suppose the committee concludes the note is ambiguous. What should it do, and what does this reveal about the limits of principle-based reasoning?
Read the worked answer
If the note is genuinely ambiguous, the committee should not treat ambiguity as licence to do whatever the clinicians prefer. It should:
- Seek further evidence of the patient's values (family testimony, GP records, prior conversations).
- Convene the palliative care meeting the nurse identified as missing, since the daughter's position may shift once she understands what 'everything done' now involves.
- Where reasonable disagreement persists, adopt a precautionary, time-limited plan with review, rather than an irreversible withdrawal or indefinite ventilation by default.
What this shows about principle-based reasoning: principles such as autonomy and best interests generate answers only when the facts are determinate. Here the very fact the principles need - what the patient would have wanted - is contested. Principles therefore underdetermine the decision; the committee must also rely on procedural values (inclusion, transparency, review) and on judgement about what a reasonable person would accept. This is the classic limit of a deductive model of applied ethics: it presupposes settled premises that real cases rarely supply.