CLINICAL CASE FOR DISCUSSION
Mr. Carlson
Lawrence P. Ulrich, Ph.D.
Lawrence.Ulrich@notes.udayton.edu



Some Issues Raised:

Mr. Carlson is 73 years old and has been diagnosed with lymphoma. He received one course of chemotherapy but was told that even with another course of chemotherapy the best he could hope for was another 6 months to live. He had been living alone in  Reno but decided to move to Cleveland to live out his days with his niece who is his only relative. After settling in his new home he began to suffer from congestive heart failure and went to Dr. Morrow, a local oncologist for help. Dr. Morrow ordered hospitalization and Mr. Carlson agreed but insisted that he be made DNR upon admission. His niece agreed with his request and presented Dr. Morrow with a copy of her uncle's living will and durable power of attorney for healthcare (appointing her as the attorney-in-fact) which he had signed in Nevada. However, Dr. Morrow talked Mr. Carlson into being a full code "for a while" so his situation could be assessed. After three days Mr. Carlson arrested and he was resuscitated and placed on a ventilator. His niece requested again that he be made DNR. A neurological consult revealed that his EEG was so bad that, even if he could be weaned from the ventilator, his mental status would be highly impaired. Dr. Morrow still refused to make him DNR and the next day when his kidneys suddenly ceased functioning Mr. Carlson was sent for dialysis without the consent of his niece. While receiving dialysis his blood pressure bottomed out and he was given vasopressors to restore it. Another neurological consult revealed an even more compromised EEG which indicated that he had a 93% chance of being vegetative and a 7% chance of severe mental impairment with 0% chance of returning to his previous level of functioning.


Some Discussion Questions:

1. In view of the Patient Self-Determination Act what kind of information should have been given to Mr. Carlson when he was admitted to the hospital?
2. How should the presentation of Mr. Carlson's advance directive have been handled by the hospital?
3. What were Dr. Morrow's obligations to Mr. Carlson in light of his advance directive?
4. What were Dr. Morrow's obligations to Mr. Carlson's niece?
5. What could Mr. Carlson and his niece have done when Mr. Carlson came to Cleveland to insure that his advance directive would be honored?
6. What special problems might a Nevada advance directive present for compliance in Ohio?
7. How do the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice figure into this case? Which principle(s) should govern the decisions made in this case?
8. What strategies would you implement to bring this case to a resolution which maximizes the well-being of the patient?
9. How might an ethics consultation be helpful in resolving the disputes in this case?