Sara and George and Justice
H. Fillit
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-9-200405040-00018
IF: 39.2
2004-05-04
Annals of Internal Medicine
Abstract:As an expert witness for the defense, I reviewed the case of a 90-year-old woman with Alzheimer disease who died of complications from a urinary tract infection in a nursing home. The case seemed like a typical clinical situation I had been involved with many times as a geriatrician, but in this case, the doctor was being sued for wrongful death. Sara had lived in the nursing home for 5 years. George, her devoted husband, couldn't take care of her anymore. He put her in a good home and visited her every week, as Sara became a nonverbal, completely dependent person with dementia. George also picked a good doctor. Dr. H. ran an ethical, caring, competent practice. Dr. H. and George made a point of meeting at the home once a month. During the last year of Sara's life, Dr. H. and George had talked about advance directives. They agreed on a do-not-resuscitate order, which was put in the chart along with documentation of the discussion itself. After the umpteenth infection, George told Dr. H. that he did not want to hospitalize Sara anymore and would consider withholding antibiotics. George couldn't watch Sara suffer, and he knew Sara wouldn't have wanted this kind of life. George also told Dr. H. he had recently been diagnosed with lung cancer and that he was dying. He didn't want Sara to be alone, with nobody visiting or caring about her after he was gone. But after this long conversation, Dr. H. was in a hurry to get back to the office, and the discussion was not documented in the chart. The following Friday night, Sara spiked a fever. Dr. H. told the nurse that it was probably another urinary tract infection and asked her to get a urine culture before he started antibiotics because it was probably a resistant organism. On Monday morning, Dr. H. called the nursing home, but the urine culture and sensitivity were still not backa problem with the lab. He told the nurse to call the lab and get the result, as was their usual practice, and to call him back. By Monday night, the night nurse, who didn't know the case very well, got worried because Sara looked really bad. She tried to call George, but he was not available. The nurse decided that she needed to contact the next of kin, so she looked on the admitting sheet, made 5 years previously. At that time, Sara was George's fifth wife. She was close with the daughter of George's third wife, Betty, so she listed Betty as next of kin after George. Unfortunately, soon after, George had a falling out with the family of his third wife, and Betty moved to Boston. Betty hadn't seen Sara in 5 years and had not been involved in her care at all. However, the night nurse didn't know this and called Betty to tell her that Sara was looking really bad. Betty told the night nurse that she wanted Sara hospitalized immediately. The night nurse called Dr. H. and asked him what to do. He said that George's wishes were very clear, that Betty had not been involved in Sara's care at all, and that it was okay to keep Sara in the home. Again, he asked for the urine results, but again he was told they were not available yet. Tuesday morning, the results on the sensitivities were finally obtained, and Dr. H. started antibiotics. Sara died that afternoon, peacefully. The reason the nursing home couldn't find George on Monday night was because he had been admitted to the hospital for his lung cancer. However, it also turned out that George had been having an affair for the past 3 years. Two weeks after Sara died, George got remarried at the age of 91 to his sixth wife. Six weeks after Sara died, George died. But Betty was still in Sara's will. As a result of Sara's death, the money in George's estate would pass to his sixth wife, instead of passing from Sara to Betty. When Betty found out, she figured that if the doctor had treated Sara aggressively, Sara might have lived more than 6 weeks, George would have died before Sara, and George's estate would have passed to her. So, she sued Dr. H. for wrongful death. We prepared to go to court. Dr. H. told me he could have settled out of court, even the insurance company wanted to, but he just couldn't admit to doing anything wrong after caring for Sara all those years. We discussed his inconsistent palliative care plan. I asked him why he ordered the urine culture if he really wanted to withhold antibiotics. He said he hadn't quite formulated a clear plan by that Friday night, and that his first reaction was to do what he had always done with a urinary tract infection, to order the urine culture. He thought about starting empirical antibiotic therapy, but then he thought about George's wishes for palliative care, so maybe he decided to go slow and withhold the antibiotics until the sensitivities were back. We tried to plan a strategy for the defense. I would testify about quality of life and the futility of treating recurrent urinary tract infections in patients with end-stage Alzheimer disease. However, I couldn't mention the last discussions that Dr. H. and George had about palliative care because they weren't documented in the chart. In the back of the courtroom were Dr. H.'s wife and two little kids, there to support their dad on trial for wrongful death. The defense lawyer asked for my opinion. I testified that Dr. H. practiced within the standard of care. I tried to educate the jury about end-stage Alzheimer disease, but they were far away, across the room, across a chasm of knowledge and experience. I tried for over an hour to do my best teaching ever as a professor of geriatric medicine. Now it was the plaintiff's lawyer's turn. I remember the patent leather shoes mostly. Handsome guy. Well spoken. After about 90 minutes into testimony, he asked, Shouldn't Dr. H. have gotten the urine results within 48 hours of the test, and wasn't it his responsibility to get the test results, not the nursing home? No, I said. While it was reasonable to get the results within 48 hours, it was his practice to ask the nursing home staff to get the results, and the nurses blamed the delay on the lab. Then he asked, Doctor, in your expert opinion, if Dr. H. had treated the infection in a timely manner, would Sara have lived for 6 weeks, yes or no? I said I couldn't answer the question. Anyway, that was not the point. Alzheimer disease robs you of everything human. Treating the urinary tract infection was irrelevant and useless; antibiotics are futile at the end. Sara would have died of one of these infections whether they were treated or not. I couldn't mention George's wishes for palliative care, how maybe Dr. H. really wanted to withhold antibiotics in any case. But I gave my opinion that, for the values of most patients and their loved ones, this death was a blessing. The judge let me go on (was he on my side?), despite the lawyer's objections. I was pleading with the jury, trying to convince them that Dr. H. provided compassionate, competent care. The lawyer finally demanded that the judge instruct me answer the question. I said I thought it was unlikely that Sara would live 6 weeks, but that no physician can predict when death will occur with any certainty. So, it is possible then that Sara could have lived 6 weeks!? Yes or no? Yes There was nothing else I could say. I left the courtroom thinking how unfair our tort system is. Dr. H. wasn't being judged by his peers. Three hours in a courtroom couldn't make the jurors understand, not medically, not emotionally, not ethically, what it meant to have end-stage Alzheimer disease. George wasn't even there. Nothing he said about palliative care entered the courtroom. This was all about money. But for Dr. H., it was about his reputation, professional survival, and dignity. Accused in a small town of wrongful death of a 90-year-old nursing home resident! Dr. H. was a competent, caring physician, but he had an ambiguous, inconsistent palliative care plan. Nevertheless, in the end, he did carry out George's wishes. Sara did not suffer and died a peaceful death. After a few hours the jury came back with a guilty verdict. Dr. H. was responsible for getting the results of the urine culture, and he could have started empirical antibiotic therapy. If he had, Sara probably would have lived 6 more weeks. The daughter of George's third wife got $100000. Dr. H. got a judgment for wrongful death in a 90-year-old woman with end-stage Alzheimer disease, whose only loved-one sought compassionate care. Justice was served.