Losing Rather than Choosing: A Defense of Advance Directives in the Context of Dementia

Flaws in advance directives that request withdrawing assisted feeding in late-stage dementia may cause premature or prolonged dying

Background

The terminal illness of late-stage (advanced) Alzheimer’s and related dementias is progressively cruel, burdensome, and can last years if caregivers assist oral feeding and hydrating. Options to avoid prolonged dying are limited since advanced dementia patients cannot qualify for Medical Aid in Dying. Physicians and judges can insist on clear and convincing evidence that the patient wants to die—which many advance directives cannot provide. Proxies/agents’ substituted judgment may not be concordant with patients’ requests. While advance directives can be patients’ last resort to attain a peaceful and timely dying consistent with their lifelong values, success depends on their being effective and acceptable. A single flaw can provide opponents justification to refuse the directive’s requests to cease assisted feeding.

Aim

This article considers 24 common advance directive flaws in four categories. Process flaws focus on how patients express their end-of-life wishes. Content flaws reflect drafters’ selection of conditions and interventions, and how they are described. Inherent flaws can make advance directives unacceptable to authorities concerned about premature dying. Strategies are needed to compel physicians to write needed orders and to prevent third parties from sabotaging these orders after they are  implemented. The article includes excerpts from “dementia-specific” directives or supplements that exemplify each flaw—mostly from the US and Europe. No directive critiqued here included an effective strategy to resolve this long-debated bioethical conflict: the past directive requests “Cease assisted feeding” but the incapacitated patient apparently expresses the desire to “Continue assisted feeding.” Some opponents to the controversial request, cease assisted feeding, use this conflict as a conceptual wedge to practice hard paternalism. This article proposes a protocol to prevent this conflict from emerging. These strategies may prevent authorities from requiring patients to fulfill authorities’ additional clinical criteria as a prerequisite to honor the requests in patients directives.

Conclusion

This critique of flaws may serve as a guide to drafting and to selecting effective and acceptable advance directives for dementia. It also poses several bioethical and clinical questions to those in authority: Does your paternalistic refusal to honor patients’ wishes respect their self-determination? Protect vulnerable patients from harm? Force patients to endure prolonged suffering? Violate the principles of bioethics? Violate the very foundation of patient-centered care?

Exploring the Motivations for Completing Advance Care Directives: A Qualitative Study of Majority/Minority Israeli People Without Dementia

Background

Completing advance directives has been declared an essential instrument for preserving and respecting the autonomy and preferences for end-of-life care of people living with dementia. However, research deciphering the reasoning behind the decision to complete or not advance directives in the case of dementia remains limited, especially among people pertaining to different majority/minority groups.

Objectives

To explore the motivations of people without dementia in Israel to complete or not to complete advance directives and to compare these motivations among the majority veteran Jewish group, the minority Jewish Former Soviet Union immigrant group, and the minority Arab group.

Methods

This qualitative study used purposive sampling and focus groups with discussions elicited by a vignette. A total of 42 Israeli people without dementia participated in 6 focus groups: two with veteran Jews (n = 14), two with Jewish immigrants from the Former Soviet Union (n = 14), and two with Arabs (n = 14). The analysis followed recommended steps for thematic content analysis.

Results

Four overarching themes were identified: (1) the meaning of dementia-related advance directives, (2) motivations for willingness to complete advance directives, (3) motivations for not being willing to complete advance directives, and (4) ethical dilemmas. Some of the themes were common to all groups, while others were informed by the groups' unique characteristics. Participants displayed a lack of knowledge and misunderstanding about advance directives, and central concepts such as autonomy and competence. Furthermore, stigmatic images of dementia and of the person with the diagnosis were associated to participants' motivations to complete advance directives.

Conclusions

There is need to expand comparative research among culturally and socially similar and dissimilar groups within a country as well as between countries in order to better guide public health efforts to increase the rates of advance directives completion. Special attention should be paid to decreasing stigmatic beliefs and understanding unique cultural values and motivations.