The Unbefriended Patient, Their Professional Guardians, and Clinical Liaison Psychiatry: The Challenging Ethics of Changing Goals of Care.

AbstractUnbefriended patients are those with decisional impairments who lack family or friends to serve as healthcare surrogates. When such patients cannot make decisions, the court typically appoints a professional guardian to make choices aligned with the patient's values and preferences. However, this case report illustrates ethical challenges that can arise when professional guardians disregard the patient's authentic wishes. In this case study, the 38-year-old unbefriended African American male patient expressed fears about traumatic resuscitation efforts and ultimately desired de-escalation of care, which the guardian was hesitant to honor despite confirmed decision-making capacity. The guardian quickly reversed a new do-not-resuscitate order when the patient later changed his mind. Decisions about aggressive interventions like a colostomy were significantly delayed while awaiting final judgments involving the guardian's supervisors and the judicial system. The case highlights pitfalls with guardians defaulting to treatment escalation without sufficiently engaging with ethical standards or eliciting the patient's narrative identity, leading to inconsistent surrogate decisions. We propose that more robust reforms are needed, including enhanced training of guardians in ethical decision-making, and we present other means to facilitate best practices in proxy decision-making.