A Request to Stop Seizure Medication When a Guardian Disagrees
Ms. A is a 33-year-old woman with mild intellectual disability and epilepsy who lives in a supported apartment with four hours of daily staffing. She has been seizure-free for three years on levetiracetam 1000 mg twice daily. At a routine visit she says, 'I want to stop that medicine. It makes me mean and tired. I haven't had a seizure in forever.' She has a court-appointed guardian, her mother, who says, 'She doesn't understand-she could die. Keep giving it.' The neurologist's last note says recurrence risk is significant and that withdrawal must be tapered. Ms. A can state that the medicine is for seizures, that stopping could cause a seizure, and that she would call staff if she felt funny, but she cannot explain status epilepticus or tapering. She has recently started a new job and is proud of it. She asks you not to tell her mother.
1. How would you respond in the moment to Ms. A's request to stop levetiracetam and her request that you not tell her mother? Explain the ethical and clinical reasoning.
Read the worked answer
I would take her wish seriously and not dismiss it because she has a guardian. First, I would explore the side effects: when she feels mean and tired, her sleep and mood, and whether the timing of doses matters. I would explain in plain language that stopping suddenly can cause a seizure and that the neurologist says tapering is required. I would be honest that I cannot promise secrecy: her mother is her guardian, medication decisions require consent, and I have a duty to share information that affects her safety. I can offer to help her tell her mother, or to be present when she does, and I can limit what I share to what is necessary.
I would not say 'you cannot understand.' I would document her exact words and her reasons. The goal is to support her voice, not to override it or to collude in a secret medication change.
2. What process would you use to assess her decision-making and balance autonomy with protection?
Read the worked answer
I would assess understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and expression of choice, not just IQ. She can state that the medication is for seizures and that stopping may cause a seizure; she cannot explain status epilepticus or tapering. That suggests she can participate but may not meet the threshold for refusing treatment, especially with a guardian. I would ask the neurologist to speak with her directly and to consider whether the irritability is dose-related or treatable, such as different timing, formulation, or an alternative medication.
I would convene the interdisciplinary team and, if she and the guardian disagree, ask for a rights or ethics consultation and a supported decision-making process. The least restrictive path is a medication review with her participation, not an abrupt stop and not simply sedating the concern. I would create a seizure action plan and ensure staff know what to do if she stops or misses doses. Reassess and document at each step.
3. What would you document, and what would you bring to the interdisciplinary team meeting?
Read the worked answer
Document her stated request and reasons in her words, the side effects she reports, her understanding of the risks, the guardian's position, the neurologist's warning, and the plan for review. Record that she was given information in accessible language and that confidentiality limits were explained. Do not write 'noncompliant' or 'lacks capacity' without an actual assessment.
For the interdisciplinary team, I would bring a one-page summary: seizure-free interval, current dose, reported side effects, her goal of keeping her new job, the guardian's concern, and options-continue with monitoring, adjust timing, try an alternative medication after neurology review, or taper only under neurology direction. I would ask the team to clarify who consents and how her preferences will be represented. The meeting should produce a dated plan and a review date, not a stalemate.