This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: Dr Workman identifies a common sticking point for many clinicians who engage in discussions to limit life support. Clinicians and surrogates both have appropriate roles and share responsibility for medical decisions. In Workman's words, if their opinions differ, then "exactly how [is] such sharing . . . to be accomplished"?

We make 3 points. First, our intent was to point out a common flaw in clinicians' communications that has serious consequences, namely, the tendency to see "shared" decision making as an either/or rather than as a both/and phenomenon. We prefer to frame the interaction between surrogates and clinicians as a negotiation rather than one in which parties compete to determine a decision.¹ A competitive framework makes the false presumption that one party to the discussion must have ultimate authority. We are not naïve about instances where the relationship between parties breaks down, even if such cases represent a . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLES

Shared Decision Making About Withdrawing Treatment
Stephen Workman
JAMA. 2003;289(8):981.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Handling Conflict in End-of-Life Care
Louis R. Caplan, Joanne Lynn, Thomas J. Prendergast, Susan Dorr Goold, Brent C. Williams, and Robert M. Arnold
JAMA. 2000;283(24):3199-3200.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT