Cleveland Fellow in Advanced Bioethics, Cleveland Clinic Center for Bioethics in Cleveland, Ohio USA. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4848-6639. shapiro4@ ccf.org.
Nurse Ethicist and Director of the Nursing Ethics Program, Cleveland Clinic Center for Bioethics and Stanley S. Zielony Institute of Nursing Excellence, Cleveland, Ohio USA. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0099-3597.
J Clin Ethics. 2022 Spring;33(1):50-57.
In this article, we discuss the case of Michael Johnson, an African-American man who sought treatment for respiratory distress due to COVID-19, but who was adamant that he did not want to be intubated due to his belief that ventilators directly cause death. This case prompted reflection about the ways in which a false belief can create uncertainty and complexity for clinicians who are responsible for evaluating decision-making capacity (DMC). In our analysis, we consider the extent to which Mr. Johnson demonstrated capacity according to each of Appelbaum's criteria.1 Although it was fairly clear that Mr. Johnson lacked DMC on the basis of both understanding and appreciation, we found ourselves reflecting upon the false belief that seemed to motivate his refusal. This led us to further consider the ways in which our current social and political environment can complicate evaluations of patients' preferences and reasons for declining life-sustaining interventions. In particular, we consider the impact of the role of misinformation and systemic racism in preparing the grounds for false beliefs. In this article, we discuss the case of Michael Johnson, an African-American man who sought treatment for respiratory distress due to COVID-19, but who was adamant that he did not want to be intubated due to his belief that ventilators directly cause death. This case prompted reflection about the ways in which a false belief can create uncertainty and complexity for clinicians who are responsible for evaluating decision-making capacity (DMC). In our analysis, we consider the extent to which Mr. Johnson demonstrated capacity according to each of Appelbaum’s criteria.1 Although it was fairly clear that Mr. Johnson lacked DMC on the basis of both understanding and appreciation, we found ourselves reflecting upon the false belief that seemed to motivate his refusal. This led us to further consider the ways in which our current social and political environment can complicate evaluations of patients’ preferences and reasons for declining life-sustaining interventions. In particular, we consider the impact of the role of misinformation and systemic racism in preparing the grounds for false beliefs.
在这篇文章中,我们讨论了迈克尔·约翰逊(Michael Johnson)的案例,他是一名非裔美国人,因 COVID-19 导致呼吸窘迫寻求治疗,但他坚决拒绝插管,因为他相信呼吸机直接导致死亡。这个案例促使我们反思,一个错误信念如何为负责评估决策能力(DMC)的临床医生制造不确定性和复杂性。在我们的分析中,我们根据 Appelbaum 的标准考虑了约翰逊先生在多大程度上表现出了能力。1 虽然根据理解和欣赏这两个标准,约翰逊先生显然缺乏 DMC,但我们发现自己在反思似乎促使他拒绝的错误信念。这使我们进一步考虑我们当前的社会和政治环境如何使评估患者对拒绝维持生命干预措施的偏好和理由变得复杂。特别是,我们考虑了错误信息和系统性种族主义在为错误信念奠定基础方面的作用。