Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2019; 40(03): 162-169
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688838
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Complexity of Clinical Decision Making: Consent, Capacity, and Ethics

Annette Askren
1   VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
2   College of Education and Human Services, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia
,
Paula Leslie
3   Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, School of Health Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 June 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Speech–language pathologists (SLPs), and really their patients, are often faced with challenging clinical decisions to be made. Patients may decline interventions recommended by the SLP and are often inappropriately labeled “noncompliant.” The inappropriateness of this label extends beyond the negative charge; the patient's right to refuse is, in fact, protected by law. Anecdotal exchanges, social media platforms, and American Speech-Language-Hearing Association forums have recently revealed that many SLPs are struggling with the patient's right to decline. Many are not comfortable with the informed consent process and what entails patients' capacity to make their own medical decisions. Here, we discuss the basics of clinical decision-making ethics with intent to minimize the clinician's discomfort with the right to refuse those thickened liquids and eliminate the practice of defensive medicine.

Keywords

ethics - consent - capacity - decision making
 

  • References

  • 1 Miller RM, Groher ME. Speech-language pathology and dysphagia: a brief historical perspective. Dysphagia 1993; 8 (03) 180-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2017 health care survey summary report: numbers and types of responses. 2017 . Available at: www.asha.org . Accessed April 24, 2019
    PubMed
  • 3 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2018 Schools survey. Survey summary report: numbers and types of responses, SLPs, 2018 . Available at: www.asha.org . Accessed April 24, 2019
    PubMed
  • 4 Colodny N. Dysphagic independent feeders' justifications for noncompliance with recommendations by a speech-language pathologist. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2005; 14 (01) 61-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jin J, Sklar GE, Min Sen Oh V, Chuen Li S. Factors affecting therapeutic compliance: a review from the patient's perspective. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2008; 4 (01) 269-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Mentally ill and non-mentally-ill patients' abilities to understand informed consent disclosures for medication: preliminary data. Law Hum Behav 1991; 15 (04) 377-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Code of Ethics [Ethics]. 2016 . Available at: www.asha.org/policy . Accessed April 24, 2019
    PubMed
  • 8 Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. Assessing competence to consent to treatment: a guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Horner J, Modayil M, Chapman LR, Dinh A. Consent, refusal, and waivers in patient-centered dysphagia care: using law, ethics, and evidence to guide clinical practice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2016; 25 (04) 453-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sharp HM, Bryant KN. Ethical issues in dysphagia: when patients refuse assessment or treatment. Semin Speech Lang 2003; 24 (04) 285-299
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Karlawish J. Measuring decision-making capacity in cognitively impaired individuals. Neurosignals 2008; 16 (01) 91-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 108. Minn 1905
    PubMed
  • 13 Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92. 211 NY 125 1914
    PubMed
  • 14 Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr University Board of Trustees, 317 P2d 170 154 Cal App2d 560 1957
    PubMed
  • 15 Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 1972)
    PubMed
  • 16 Patient Self Determination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc (a) (1).1990
    PubMed
  • 17 Ryan M. Sinha. Informed procedural consent. UpToDate. 2017 . Available at: https://www-uptodate-com.pitt.idm.oclc.org/contents/informed-procedural-consent?topicRef=98592&source=see_link . Accessed April 24, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Raab EL. The parameters of informed consent. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2004; 102: 225-230 , discussion 230–232
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Hill-Fotouhi C. The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients' capacities to make treatment decisions. Psychiatr Serv 1997; 48 (11) 1415-1419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lai JM, Gill TM, Cooney LM, Bradley EH, Hawkins KA, Karlawish JH. Everyday decision-making ability in older persons with cognitive impairment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008; 16 (08) 693-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 American Psychological Association. Guidelines for nonhandicapping language in APA journals: Committee on disability issues in psychology. 1992 . Available at: https://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/nonhandicapping-language . Accessed April 24, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Crocker AF, Smith SN. Person-first language: are we practicing what we preach?. J Multidiscip Healthc 2019; 12: 125-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Heritage J, Robinson JD, Elliott MN, Beckett M, Wilkes M. Reducing patients' unmet concerns in primary care: the difference one word can make. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22 (10) 1429-1433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stortenbeker IA, Houwen J, Lucassen PLBJ. , et al. Quantifying positive communication: doctor's language and patient anxiety in primary care consultations. Patient Educ Couns 2018; 101 (09) 1577-1584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Finucane TE, Bynum JPW. Use of tube feeding to prevent aspiration pneumonia. Lancet 1996; 348 (9039): 1421-1424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Finucane TE, Christmas C, Travis K. Tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia: a review of the evidence. JAMA 1999; 282 (14) 1365-1370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Callahan CM, Haag KM, Weinberger M. , et al. Outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy among older adults in a community setting. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48 (09) 1048-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gillick MR. Rethinking the role of tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia. N Engl J Med 2000; 342 (03) 206-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Royal College of Physicians and British Society of Gastroenterology. Oral feeding difficulties and dilemmas: a guide to practical care, particularly towards the end of Life Clinical medicine (2010/04/23 ed.). London: Royal College of Physicians; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Goldberg LS, Altman KW. The role of gastrostomy tube placement in advanced dementia with dysphagia: a critical review. Clin Interv Aging 2014; 9 (09) 1733-1739
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 American Geriatrics Society. Feeding tube in advanced dementia position statement. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014; 62: 1590-1593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

    • Suggested Reading

  • Mitchell SL. A 93-year-old man with advanced dementia and eating problems. JAMA 2007; 298 (21) 2527-2536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dy SM. Enteral and parenteral nutrition in terminally ill cancer patients: a review of the literature. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2006; 23 (05) 369-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sampson EL, Candy B, Jones L. Enteral tube feeding for older people with advanced dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 15 (02) CD007209
    PubMedGoogle Scholar