John Seago

Disputes over life-sustaining treatment between clinicians and patients or their surrogates are common in the intensive care unit and expected to increase in America because of an aging population, shifts in medical training, and trends in popular opinions on end-of-life decisions. Clinicians struggle to effectively communicate the recommendation that withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is appropriate when the burdens of treatment outweigh the benefits. This view seems foreign and unimaginable to surrogates like family members with deeply held values motivate them to insist “everything be done” as long as the patient can be physiologically kept alive. For over three decades now, clinicians and bioethicists have sought preventative ethical and policy solutions to avoid or resolve these treatment disputes, including efforts to improve the communication between medical professionals and surrogates. Looking at the history of proposed solutions shows that giving providers more and better communication and negotiation tools may be inadequate on its own. However, better communication has the potential to unearth the motivations and deeper values of the disagreeing parties so that differing perspectives can be recognized and common ground can be established. The latest emphasize on communication has the potential to succeed where other historical solutions have failed. If bioethics is going to successfully analyze and remedy these disputes, the values motivating these views, even ones outside the bioethical consensus, must be acknowledged and respected. In short, better communication will not avoid or resolve life-sustaining treatment disputes in the intensive care unit unless the deeper ethical convictions of the disagreeing parties are recognized and engaged.