Advertisement
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Home

Substituted Judgment in Principle and Practice: A National Physician Survey

      Abstract

      Objective

      To describe the extent to which US physicians endorse substituted judgments in principle or accommodate them in practice.

      Patients and Methods

      We surveyed a stratified, random sample of 2016 physicians by mail from June 25, 2010, to September 3, 2010. Primary outcome measures were agreement with 2 in-principle statements about substituted judgment and, after an experimental vignette that varied the basis used by a patient's surrogate to refuse life-saving treatment, responses indicating how appropriate it would be to overrule the surrogate's decision.

      Results

      Our response rate was 62% (1156 of 1875 respondents). When there is a conflict between what a surrogate believes a patient would have wanted (substituted judgment) and what the surrogate believes is in the patient's best interest, 4 of 5 physicians (78%) agreed that the surrogate should base their decision on substituted judgment. Yet we also found that 2 of 5 physicians (40%) agree that surrogates should make decisions they believe are in the patient's best interest, even if those seem to contradict the patient's prior wishes. In the experimental vignette, physicians were much more likely to oppose overruling a surrogate's refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment when that refusal was made on the basis of substituted judgment compared with when the refusal was made on the basis of the patient's best interest (50% vs 20%; odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.7-6.3). Responses to the in-principle items about substituted judgment were not consistently associated with responses to the experimental vignette.

      Conclusion

      US physicians largely agree, in principle, that surrogates should prioritize what the patient would have wanted over what they believe is in the patient's best interest, although many physicians are ambivalent in cases in which the 2 norms conflict. Even physicians who reject the principle of substituted judgment tend to treat substituted judgment as the preferred norm for surrogate decision making when responding to a clinical vignette.

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      OR (odds ratio)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Mayo Clinic Proceedings
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Raymont V.
        • Bingley W.
        • Buchanan A.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors: cross-sectional study.
        Lancet. 2004; 364: 1421-1427
        • Torke A.M.
        • Siegler M.
        • Abalos A.
        • Moloney R.M.
        • Alexander G.C.
        Physicians' experience with surrogate decision making for hospitalized adults.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24: 1023-1028
        • Silveira M.J.
        • Kim S.Y.
        • Langa K.M.
        Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 1211-1218
        • Buchanan A.E.
        • Brock D.W.
        Deciding For Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making.
        Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England1989
        • Beauchamp T.L.
        • Childress J.F.
        Principles of Biomedical Ethics.
        Oxford University Press, New York, NY2001
        • American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs
        CEJA Report 4-A-01: Surrogate Decision Making.
        American Medical Association, Chicago, IL2001 (Accessed May 24, 2011)
        • Torke A.M.
        • Alexander G.C.
        • Lantos J.
        Substituted judgment: the limitations of autonomy in surrogate decision making.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23: 1514-1517
        • Danis M.
        • Garrett J.
        • Harris R.
        • Patrick D.L.
        Stability of choices about life-sustaining treatments.
        Ann Intern Med. 1994; 120: 567-573
        • Sulmasy D.P.
        • Terry P.B.
        • Weisman C.S.
        • et al.
        The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses.
        Ann Intern Med. 1998; 128: 621-629
        • Ditto P.H.
        • Danks J.H.
        • Smucker W.D.
        • et al.
        Advance directives as acts of communication: a randomized controlled trial.
        Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161: 421-430
        • Bramstedt K.A.
        Questioning the decision-making capacity of surrogates.
        Intern Med J. 2003; 33: 257-259
        • Shalowitz D.I.
        • Garrett-Mayer E.
        • Wendler D.
        The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review.
        Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 493-497
        • Sulmasy D.P.
        • Hughes M.T.
        • Thompson R.E.
        • et al.
        How would terminally ill patients have others make decisions for them in the event of decisional incapacity? A longitudinal study.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007; 55: 1981-1988
        • Varma S.
        • Wendler D.
        Medical decision making for patients without surrogates.
        Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167: 1711-1715
        • Sulmasy D.P.
        • Snyder L.
        Substituted interests and best judgments: an integrated model of surrogate decision making.
        JAMA. 2010; 304: 1946-1947
        • Torke A.M.
        • Alexander G.C.
        • Lantos J.
        • Siegler M.
        The physician-surrogate relationship.
        Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167: 1117-1121
        • Lawrence R.E.
        • Curlin F.A.
        Autonomy, religion and clinical decisions: findings from a national physician survey.
        J Med Ethics. 2009; 35: 214-218
        • Yoon J.D.
        • Rasinski K.A.
        • Curlin F.A.
        Moral controversy, directive counsel, and the doctor's role: findings from a national survey of obstetrician-gynecologists.
        Acad Med. 2010; 85: 1475-1481
        • Sheskin I.M.
        A methodology for examining the changing size and spatial distribution of a Jewish population: a Miami case study.
        Shofar. 1998; 17: 97-114
        • Lauderdale D.S.
        • Kestenbaum B.
        Asian American ethnic identification by surname.
        Population Res Policy Rev. 2000; 19: 283-300
        • Lauderdale D.S.
        Birth outcomes for Arabic-named women in California before and after September 11.
        Demography. 2006; 43: 185-201
        • Alexander C.S.
        • Becker H.J.
        The use of vignettes in survey research.
        Public Opin Q. 1978; 42: 93-104
        • Finch J.
        The vignette technique in survey research.
        Sociology. 1987; 21: 105
        • Schoenberg N.E.
        • Ravdal H.
        Using vignettes in awareness and attitudinal research.
        Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2000; 3: 63-74
        • Veloski J.
        • Tai S.
        • Evans A.S.
        • Nash D.B.
        Clinical vignette-based surveys: a tool for assessing physician practice variation.
        Am J Med Qual. 2005; 20: 151
        • The American Association for Public Opinion Research
        Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys.
        5th ed. American Association for Public Opinion Research, Lenexa, KS2008
        • Rhodes R.
        • Holzman I.R.
        The not unreasonable standard for assessment of surrogates and surrogate decisions.
        Theor Med Bioeth. 2004; 25: 367-385
        • Seckler A.B.
        • Meier D.E.
        • Mulvihill M.
        • Paris B.E.
        Substituted judgment: how accurate are proxy predictions?.
        Ann Intern Med. 1991; 115: 92-98
        • Quill T.E.
        • Brody H.
        Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and physician choice.
        Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125: 763
        • Emanuel E.J.
        • Emanuel L.L.
        Four models of the physician-patient relationship.
        JAMA. 1992; 267: 2221-2226
        • Curlin F.A.
        • Lawrence R.E.
        • Fredrickson J.
        An ethical façade? Medical students' miscomprehensions of substituted judgment.
        PLoS One. 2009; 4: e4374
        • Ouslander J.G.
        • Tymchuk A.J.
        • Rahbar B.
        Health care decisions among elderly long-term care residents and their potential proxies.
        Arch Intern Med. 1989; 149: 1367-1372
        • Ditto P.H.
        • Danks J.H.
        • Smucker W.D.
        • et al.
        Advance directives as acts of communication: a randomized controlled trial.
        Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161: 421-430
        • Coppola K.M.
        • Ditto P.H.
        • Danks J.H.
        • Smucker W.D.
        Accuracy of primary care and hospital-based physicians' predictions of elderly outpatients' treatment preferences with and without advance directives.
        Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161: 431-440
        • Fagerlin A.
        • Schneider C.E.
        Enough: the failure of the living will.
        Hastings Cent Rep. 2004; 34: 30-42
        • Tulsky J.A.
        Beyond advance directives: importance of communication skills at the end of life.
        JAMA. 2005; 294: 359-365
        • Perkins H.S.
        Controlling death: the false promise of advance directives.
        Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 51-57
        • Detering K.M.
        • Hancock A.D.
        • Reade M.C.
        • Silvester W.
        The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial.
        BMJ. 2010; 340: c1345