Adherence to advance directives

A. Higgs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7428.1406-b

2003-12-11

British Medical Journal

Abstract:Editor—Thompson et al's article on adherence to advance directives is a telling exploration of an increasingly relevant issue.1 The vignette they constructed was comprehensive and robust, leaving no reasonable person in any doubt about the nature and severity of conditions for which the patient would refuse intervention. The arguments for treating the patient in the face of such a clear instruction seem to amount to no more than seeking loopholes, or high handedly insisting that doctors know best. Both sit uneasily in an era when doctors call for patients to take more responsibility for their illnesses. Some of the variation in adherence to patients' wishes which they identify may be because, until recently, there was a perceived lack of explicit guidance on what doctors are to do when faced with what, in the United Kingdom, is a contemporary development. The General Medical Council has recently produced thorough guidelines that intensivists have found useful.2,3 These say that any valid advance refusal is legally binding and must be respected when it is applicable to the patient's present circumstances and when there is no reason to believe that the patient has changed his or her mind. In contrast, doctors may be lulled into a false sense of security if they take at face value the conclusion of Thompson et al that successful prosecution is unlikely if an advance directive is ignored. The guidelines remove much room for manoeuvre clinicians once thought they had when following patients' instructions. The GMC has produced a compelling advance directive itself, which is to be commended to all those involved in making such decisions.