Ethical Considerations of Declining Surgical Intervention: Balancing Patient Wishes with Fiduciary Responsibility.

Abstract

Orthopaedic surgeons face increasing pressure to meet quality metrics due to regulatory changes and payment policies. Poor outcomes, including patient mortality, can result in financial penalties and negative ratings. Importantly, adverse outcomes often increase surgeon stress level and lead to job dissatisfaction and burnout. Despite optimization efforts, some orthopaedic patients remain at high risk for complications. In this article, we explore the ethical considerations when surgeons are presented with high-risk surgical candidates. We examine how the ethical tenets of patient interests, namely beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, apply to such patients. We discuss external forces such as the malpractice environment, financial challenges in health-care delivery, and quality rankings. Informed consent and the challenges of communicating risks to patients are discussed, as well as the role of modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. Case examples with varied outcomes highlight the complexities of decision-making with high-risk patients and the potential role of palliative care. We provide recommendations for surgeons and care teams, including the importance of justifiable reasons for not operating, the utilization of institutional resources to help make care decisions, and the robust communication of risks to patients.