The Competent Refusal and the Family's Request
A 78-year-old woman with moderate Alzheimer's disease and recently diagnosed metastatic pancreatic cancer is admitted with a large bowel obstruction. She has capacity on assessment: she understands the options, retains the information, and communicates a consistent choice. She declines surgery and stenting, saying she wants comfort care only. Her son, who holds a general power of attorney (not a health-care proxy), insists that 'she doesn't know what she's saying' and demands that the team operate. The daughter agrees with the son. The patient's GP notes record that two years ago, before her diagnosis, she told the GP she 'never wanted to be kept going by machines' but also 'wanted everything done if there was a chance.' The team is under time pressure: without intervention she may deteriorate within 48–72 hours.
1. How should the team respond to the family's demand, and what is the legal and ethical basis?
Read the worked answer
The patient's decision prevails if she has capacity. The family's wishes, even unanimous, do not override a capacitous refusal. Key points:
- Capacity is decision-specific and time-specific. She has been assessed as having capacity for this decision: she understands, retains, weighs, and communicates. Document the assessment.
- A general power of attorney is not a health-care proxy and does not authorise the son to consent to or refuse treatment on her behalf. Do not treat the son as a substitute decision-maker.
- Refusal of treatment by a capacitous adult is legally binding, even if the treatment is life-saving and even if the refusal may lead to death. This is a well-established principle.
- Ethically, respect for autonomy is the primary consideration; beneficence does not justify paternalistic overriding of a capacitous choice.
- Practical steps: hold a family meeting, explain clearly and compassionately that the decision is hers, explore why the family disagrees (grief, fear, misunderstanding), and offer support. Document the discussion.
- If there is genuine doubt about capacity, seek a formal capacity assessment (e.g. psychiatry/geriatrics) - but do not use the family's disagreement as evidence of incapacity.
2. How should the GP's recorded statements be used, and what weight do they carry?
Read the worked answer
The GP notes are relevant but not determinative. Reasoning:
- Advance statements can inform decisions, but a capacitous contemporaneous decision takes precedence over a prior statement. The patient is making her wishes clear now.
- The prior statements are ambiguous and conflicting ('never kept going by machines' vs 'wanted everything done if there was a chance'). They do not clearly cover this specific situation (bowel obstruction from pancreatic cancer).
- They may be useful to understand her values and to support the family in accepting her current choice, and to inform comfort-care planning.
- Do not use them to override her current capacitous refusal. An advance statement only binds if it is valid, applicable, and made when the person had capacity and was not coerced - and even then, a contemporaneous capacitous decision prevails.
- Document how the statements were considered and why they did not alter the decision.
3. The son becomes angry and says he will 'sue the hospital for letting her die.' What should you do?
Read the worked answer
Respond with de-escalation, transparency, and documentation, not defensiveness:
- Acknowledge emotion - grief and fear are driving the anger. Listen, do not argue.
- Explain clearly and repeatedly - the patient has capacity, her decision is legally binding, and the team is providing comfort care, not abandoning her.
- Offer a second opinion / senior review - this can defuse conflict and demonstrate good faith.
- Involve the palliative care team and, if needed, the clinical ethics committee or medico-legal/risk management.
- Document all discussions, the capacity assessment, and the family's concerns.
- Do not change the plan merely because of a threat of litigation. The standard is the patient's best interests and her capacitous wishes.
- If the family remains in conflict, consider formal mediation or a best-interests meeting - but the patient's capacitous refusal remains the anchor.
Key exam point: litigation threats do not alter the legal and ethical framework; they should prompt better communication, not a change of clinical decision.