The Confused Patient and the Daughter's Consent
An 82-year-old man is brought in by his daughter from a residential home. He has a three-day history of confusion, reduced oral intake, and a cough. He has advanced dementia (unable to communicate reliably), is bed-bound, and has had two recent admissions for aspiration pneumonia. Observations: temperature 38.6°C, RR 26, SpO2 89% on air, HR 104, BP 96/60, capillary glucose 6.8 mmol/L. Chest auscultation reveals right basal crackles. The daughter says, 'He wouldn't want to be poked and prodded - just make him comfortable.' She holds a health-care proxy document naming her as decision-maker. The nursing home notes record a previous discussion where he said, before his dementia advanced, that he 'didn't want to be a burden' but 'wanted to be treated if he could get better.'
1. How do you assess whether antibiotics and oxygen are appropriate, and what framework guides you?
Read the worked answer
Use a best-interests framework because the patient lacks capacity for this decision:
- Confirm lack of capacity for this specific decision - he cannot understand, retain, weigh, or communicate. Document.
- Consider the advance statement - 'didn't want to be a burden' is vague and does not clearly refuse treatment; 'wanted to be treated if he could get better' supports a trial of treatment. It is not a valid binding refusal of antibiotics.
- Weigh benefits and burdens: aspiration pneumonia is potentially treatable; antibiotics and oxygen are relatively low-burden interventions. A time-limited trial of treatment with clear review criteria is often appropriate.
- Consider the daughter's views as health-care proxy - she is a substitute decision-maker and her views carry weight, but she must act in his best interests, not her own preferences. Her statement 'just make him comfortable' may reflect her interpretation; explore it.
- Multidisciplinary input - palliative care, nursing home staff, and the GP who knows him.
- Document the reasoning and the plan, including review points.
Key reasoning: 'comfort only' is not automatically the right answer for a treatable pneumonia, nor is maximal treatment automatically right. The exam tests balanced best-interests reasoning, not a reflex.
2. The daughter insists on 'comfort only' and refuses antibiotics. How do you proceed?
Read the worked answer
A health-care proxy's refusal must be in the patient's best interests, not simply their own wish. Proceed as follows:
- Explore her reasoning - is she acting on something he said, or on her own fear of suffering? Gently clarify.
- Explain that antibiotics and oxygen are low-burden and may be effective, and that a time-limited trial is an option consistent with comfort care (symptom control alongside treatment).
- If she maintains refusal, you must decide whether her decision is consistent with the patient's best interests. If you believe it is not, you are not obliged to follow it; you should escalate.
- Escalation routes: senior/consultant review, clinical ethics committee, and if necessary legal advice (in some jurisdictions, court involvement).
- Do not simply override the proxy without a process - but do not abandon the patient to an untreated treatable illness solely because of a proxy's refusal.
- Document all discussions and the rationale.
Key reasoning: a proxy is a substitute decision-maker, not an absolute authority. Their role is to apply the patient's values and best interests; the clinical team retains a duty to act in those best interests and to escalate disagreement.
3. What if the daughter were not the proxy, and there were no advance statement?
Read the worked answer
Without a proxy or valid advance statement, decisions fall to the clinical team acting in the patient's best interests, with family consulted but not decisive:
- Best-interests decision-making considers: the patient's known values, the clinical benefits and burdens, and the views of those close to him.
- Family views are important but not binding - they inform, they do not decide.
- Multidisciplinary and ethics input is good practice for significant decisions.
- Document the process and reasoning.
Key reasoning: the exam tests whether you know the hierarchy: valid advance refusal > proxy decision (in best interests) > best-interests decision by clinicians with family consultation. Confusing these layers is a common error.