Ethical decision-making in health care rarely exists in isolation. It unfolds at the intersection of clinical judgment, legal responsibility and deeply human emotion. For cardiovascular and critical care teams, these moments often arise under extreme circumstances — when lives depend on technology, when recovery is uncertain and when a patient’s voice may be fragmented or fading. Understanding bioethics provides a framework for navigating these complex situations with clarity, compassion and integrity.
The role of bioethics in clinical care
Bioethics is the philosophical study of ethical controversies that emerge from advances in biology and medicine. In modern health care, it serves as a guide for clinicians facing morally complex decisions, especially in high-acuity environments such as intensive care units and ECMO programs. For health care teams, ethical challenges are frequent and multifaceted, involving prolonged life support, end-of-life care, allocation of scarce resources and moral distress among caregivers.
At the heart of bioethics lies the Hippocratic principle to “first, do no harm,” a reminder that every intervention — no matter how technologically advanced — must be weighed against its potential burden on the patient.
The four pillars of bioethics
Ethical reasoning in health care is often grounded in four core principles:
- Autonomy: Respecting a patient’s right to self-governance and informed decision-making.
- Beneficence: Acting in the patient’s best interest to promote well-being.
- Nonmaleficence: Avoiding harm and unnecessary suffering.
- Justice: Ensuring fairness in treatment and resource allocation.
While these principles provide structure, they can come into conflict, particularly when patients are critically ill or lack decision-making capacity.
Ethical dilemmas in cardiovascular and critical care
Common ethical dilemmas for health care teams include balancing patient autonomy with beneficence, determining appropriate use of limited resources, navigating cultural or personal values and addressing end-of-life decisions. These challenges are further complicated by provider-related factors such as experience, emotional bandwidth and moral distress, as well as patient-related factors including health literacy, socioeconomic status and mental health.
Medical decision-making is not purely clinical. It reflects a synthesis of evidence-based guidelines, risk-benefit analysis and the patient’s values, beliefs and lived experience.
An unfolding case: Ethics in real time
Consider the case of a 54-year-old woman admitted with severe respiratory failure requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation and VV ECMO support. Over weeks in the ICU, she experienced delirium, agitation and fluctuating neurologic status. As sedation was weaned, she intermittently expressed a desire to die, attempted to remove life-sustaining devices and became combative with staff.
At times, she demonstrated moments of clarity — tracking with her eyes, tolerating speaking valve trials and expressing a desire to go home with her spouse. At other times, she was disoriented, emotionally labile and unable to engage meaningfully in decision-making. Her condition raised profound ethical questions: Should care be de-escalated when a patient repeatedly expresses a wish to die? How should clinicians interpret autonomy when decision-making capacity is inconsistent?
Assessing decision-making capacity
Ethical and legal standards require that a patient have decision-making capacity to refuse or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Capacity is not global or permanent; it is decision-specific and can fluctuate over time. The Appelbaum and Grisso criteria provide a widely accepted framework for assessment, evaluating whether a patient can communicate a choice, understand relevant information, appreciate the consequences of decisions and reason logically about options.
In this case, palliative care specialists determined that the patient lacked capacity at critical moments, despite intermittent periods of engagement. Their assessment emphasized respect for her dignity while acknowledging that her ability to make complex medical decisions was impaired.
Surrogate decision-making and legal considerations
When a patient lacks capacity and has not designated a health care agent, state law determines the default surrogate decision-maker. Under Georgia’s Medical Consent Law, the spouse is the primary surrogate, followed by adult children and other relatives in a defined hierarchy.
Disagreements among family members can intensify ethical tension. In this case, the patient’s husband wished to continue aggressive treatment, believing his wife “loved life” and would recover, while their adult son felt she would not want to continue suffering. These moments often necessitate ethics committee involvement to support clinicians and families in navigating emotionally charged decisions.
The role of ethics committees
Ethics committees serve as a vital resource in complex cases, offering multidisciplinary perspectives and helping align care with ethical standards, legal requirements and the patient’s values. Their involvement does not dictate outcomes but facilitates thoughtful deliberation when no option feels clearly right.
Ethical care as a human endeavor
Ultimately, ethical care is not about choosing between right and wrong, but between competing goods. It requires humility, reflection and open communication among clinicians, patients and families. By grounding decisions in ethical principles, legal frameworks and compassionate dialogue, health care teams can navigate even the most difficult cases with professionalism and humanity.
In the face of uncertainty, ethics reminds us that medicine is not only a science — but a profoundly human practice.
LEARN MORE ABOUT NORTHSIDE HOSPITAL HEART INSTITUTE.
