Abstract

Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are becoming increasingly common, as is refusal of resuscitative efforts at the end of life, both by patients and surrogate decision-makers. While it is clear that a terminally ill patient who lacks decisional capacity may, through a surrogate, refuse cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), is it appropriate for physicians to infer from such a refusal that the patient's ICD should be deactivated? A proper answer to this question requires consideration of the nature of consent to a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order, the context in which permission is given for the writing of the DNR order, and the ontologic status of implantable devices in general and ICDs in particular. We introduce the concept of “biofixtures” and suggest that a biofixture analysis is a novel way of approaching the difficult ethical issues that may confound the care of patients with implantable devices.