Abstract
This study characterizes the prevalence and content of US state statutes governing treatment decisions for decisionally incapacitated pregnant women.
All US states have laws addressing decision making for individuals who cannot make their own medical decisions, including provisions for advance directives and processes authorizing relatives or interested persons to direct care as surrogate decision makers,1 although variation among state laws is increasingly recognized.2,3 However, the prevalence and content of state statutes and official advance directive documents addressing treatment decisions for decisionally incapacitated pregnant women is unknown.
Methods
Using the Nexis Uni and Fastcase databases, 3 authors (E.S.D., B.P.S., and C.K.D.) conducted parallel searches to identify statutes governing treatment decisions for incapacitated pregnant women effective in February 2019 from the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We compiled official state advance directive documents from each state’s legislature, administrative agency (eg, department of health), and bar association. We performed serial analyses to identify (1) presence or absence of language referencing pregnancy; (2) whether pregnancy affected advance directives, surrogate decision making on the woman’s behalf, or both; (3) whether likelihood of fetal survival was a criterion for decisions about withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapies; and (4) whether pregnancy restrictions codified in a given state’s statutes were noted in its official advance directive. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among all authors.
Results
Thirty-nine states identified pregnancy as a condition that influences either an incapacitated woman’s advance directive or surrogate decision making (Figure). Of these, 8 states’ advance directive documents elicited a woman’s pregnancy-specific care preferences. Of the 31 states that restricted choices about withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapies from pregnant women, the restriction appeared in statutes in 29 states and only in advance directive documents in 2 states (Table). Of the 29 states with statutory pregnancy restrictions, 69% of official advance directive forms did not disclose their pregnancy restrictions.
Figure. Restrictions on Choices for Life-Sustaining Therapies in Pregnant Women, by State.
Table. Pregnancy Restrictions on Choices for Life-Sustaining Therapies Across the United Statesa.
| Restricting States (N=31) | Limitations on Decision Making | Communication of Restrictions | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advance Directive Invalidated (n=26) | Surrogate Decisions Restricted (n=19) | Pregnancy Restriction Codified in Statute (n=29) | Pregnancy Restriction Disclosed in Official State Advance Directive Documents (n=11) | |
| Alabama | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Alaska | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Arkansas | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Colorado | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Delaware | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Florida | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Georgiab | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Idahoc | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Illinois | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Indiana | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Iowa | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Kansas | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Kentucky | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Louisiana | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Michigan | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Missouri | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Montana | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Nebraska | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Nevada | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| New Hampshire | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| North Dakota | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Ohio | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Oklahomab | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Pennsylvania | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Rhode Island | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| South Carolina | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| South Dakota | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
| Texas | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Utah | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Washingtonc | ✓ | ✓ | ||
| Wisconsin | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
States without pregnancy restrictions (n=20): Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota (but restricts withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in absence of clear and convincing evidence of patient’s wishes), Mississippi, Maryland, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.
State restricts withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies in absence of clear and convincing evidence of patient’s wishes.
State restricts decisions for pregnant patients through its official advance directive documents but does not have statutory pregnancy restriction.
Of the 31 states with a pregnancy restriction, 26 specifically invalidated a woman’s advance directive during pregnancy (Table). Nineteen states prohibited a surrogate decision maker from withdrawing life-sustaining therapies from a pregnant woman.
Nineteen of the 31 states with restrictions imposed these limits only when, in the opinion of the treating physician, the fetus could survive with continued application of life-sustaining therapies to the woman. The remaining 12 states required that life-sustaining therapies continue to be provided to a decisionally incapacitated pregnant woman until her fetus could be safely delivered.
Three states (Alaska, Georgia, and Oklahoma) required physicians to test for pregnancy before withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapies from female patients of childbearing age. Five states (Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota) specified that life-sustaining therapies may be discontinued if they cause the woman undue pain that cannot be alleviated by medication. Pennsylvania assumed the financial burden of providing ongoing life-sustaining therapies to a pregnant woman who lacks decisional capacity and has an end-stage medical condition or is permanently unconscious.4
Discussion
Ethics and health law in the United States prioritize patient self-determination and freedom from unwanted medical treatment. When decision making capacity has been lost, these tenets can still be upheld by using advance directives or by respecting the choices of surrogate decision makers.5 However, this analysis suggests that a majority of US states restrict the health care options available to decisionally incapacitated women during pregnancy and do not disclose these restrictions in advance directive forms.
Although states have an obligation to be transparent about pregnancy restrictions, the heterogeneity among state laws and the justification for these restrictions warrant further ethical and legal scrutiny. Neither the frequency with which these statutes are encountered nor their effect on clinical practice is known. It is unclear whether the current legal framework achieves an ethical balance between the state’s interest in preserving fetal life and the interests incapacitated women may have in forgoing life-sustaining treatments.6
Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Deputy Editor.
References
- 1.Sabatino CP. The evolution of health care advance planning law and policy. Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):211-239. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00596.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Sabatino CP. De-balkanizing state advance directive law. Public Policy Aging Rep. 2003;13(1):1-12. doi: 10.1093/ppar/13.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.DeMartino ES, Dudzinski DM, Doyle CK, et al. Who decides when a patient can’t? statutes on alternate decision makers. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(15):1478-1482. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1611497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.20 Pa CS §5429 (2016).
- 5.Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Manninen BA. Sustaining a pregnant cadaver for the purpose of gestating a fetus: a limited defense. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2016;26(4):399-430. doi: 10.1353/ken.2016.0036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]