Legal Briefing: The Unbefriended: Making Healthcare Decisions for Patients without Surrogates (Part 2)

Thaddeus Mason Pope

Mitchell Hamline School of Law; Queensland University of Technology - Australian Health Law Research Center; Saint Georges University; Alden March Bioethics Institute

Tanya Sellers


January 1, 2012

Journal of Clinical Ethics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 177-192, 2012

Since 2009, Professor Pope has authored a quarterly "Legal Briefing" column for the Journal of Clinical Ethics. Each briefing comprehensively reviews legal developments concerning a particular issue in clinical bioethics.

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column continues coverage of recent legal developments involving medical decision making for unbefriended patients. These patients have neither decision-making capacity nor a reasonably available surrogate to make healthcare decisions on their behalf. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. It has been the subject of major policy reports. Indeed, caring for the unbefriended has even been described as the "single greatest category of problems" encountered in bioethics consultation. Moreover, the scope of the problem continues to expand, especially with rapid growth in the elderly population and with an increased prevalence of dementia. Unfortunately, most U.S.jurisdictions have failed to adopt effective healthcare decision-making systems or procedures for the unbefriended. "Existing mechanisms to address the issue of decision making for the unbefriended are scant and not uniform." Most providers are "muddling through on an ad hoc basis." Still, over the past several months, a number of state legislatures have finally addressed the issue. These developments and a survey of the current landscape are grouped into the following 14 categories. The first two categories define the problem of medical decision making for the unbefriended.The remaining 12 describe different solutions to the problem. The first six categories were covered in Part 1 of this article; the last eight categories are covered in this issue (Part 2). 1. Who are the unbefriended? 2. Risks and problems of the unbefriended. 3. Prevention: advance care planning, diligent searching, and careful capacity assessment. 4. Decision-making mechanisms and standards. 5. Emergency exception to informed consent. 6. Expanded default surrogate lists: close friends. 7. Private guardians. 8. Volunteer guardians. 9. Public guardians. 10. Temporary and emergency guardians. 11. Attending physicians. 12. Other clinicians, individuals, and entities. 13. Institutional committees. 14. External committees.

Keywords: Unbefriended, surrogate, bioethics consultation, elderly, guardians, medical, death, dying, health

JEL Classification: K32, I1, I18, H51

Not Available For Download

Date posted: September 7, 2012 ; Last revised: November 6, 2013

Suggested Citation

Pope, Thaddeus Mason and Sellers, Tanya, Legal Briefing: The Unbefriended: Making Healthcare Decisions for Patients without Surrogates (Part 2) (January 1, 2012). Journal of Clinical Ethics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 177-192, 2012. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2141506

Contact Information

Thaddeus Mason Pope (Contact Author)
Mitchell Hamline School of Law ( email )
875 Summit Avenue
Room 320
Saint Paul, MN 55105
United States
651-695-7661 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.thaddeuspope.com
Queensland University of Technology - Australian Health Law Research Center ( email )
2 George Street
Brisbane, Queensland 4000
Saint Georges University ( email )
West Indies
HOME PAGE: http://www.thaddeuspope.com
Alden March Bioethics Institute ( email )
47 New Scotland Ave
MC 153
Albany, NY 12208
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.thaddeuspope.com
Tanya Sellers
Independent ( email )
No Address Available
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 371