Abstract

There has been increasing awareness of the medical and moral challenges in the care of unrepresented patients: those who cannot make their own medical decisions, do not have any surrogate decision maker, and have not indicated their treatment preferences. Most discussions have focused on procedural questions such as who should make decisions for these patients. An issue that has not gotten enough attention is the ethical standard that should govern medical decision making. I explore the question of which ethical standard provides better justification for end-of-life decisions for unrepresented patients. Two options are considered: the conventional and less demanding best interest standard, and the novel and more demanding medical futility standard. I explain the similarities and differences between these two standards, examine arguments for and against each one, and suggest that the medical futility standard is ethically superior and should replace the established best interest standard.