REFERENCES
- Covinsky KE, Fuller JD, Yaffe K, et al. Communication and decision-making in seri-ously ill patients: Findings of the SUPPORT project. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. I Am Geriatric Soc. 2000;48(suppl 5):5187–5193.
- Terry PB, Vettese M, Song J, et al. End-of-life decision-making: When patients and surro-gates disagree. I Clin Ethics. 1999;10(4): 286–293.
- Marbella AM, Desbiens NA, Mueller-Rizner N, Layde PM. Surrogate's agreement with patients' resuscitation preferences: Effect of age, relationship, and SUPPORT interven-tion. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. I Crit Care. 1998;13(3):140–145.
- Shapiro RS. (1999). In re Edna MF: Case law confusion in surrogate decision making. Theor Med Bioethics. 1999;20(1):45–54.
- Towner H. In re Martin. Issues Law Med. 1996;12(3):267–271.
- Gerhart KA, Kozoil-McLain J, Lowenstein SR, Whiteneck GG. Quality of life following spinal cord injury: Knowledge and attitudes of emergency care providers. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;23(4):807–812.
- Bach JR, Tilton MC. Life satisfaction and well-being measures in ventilator assisted individ-uals with traumatic tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(6):626–632.
- Rabeneck L, McCullough LB, Wray NP. Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gas-trostomy tube placement. Lancet. 1997; 349(9050): 496–498.
- Dowdy MD, Robertson C, Bander JA. A study of proactive ethics consultation for critically and terminally ill patients with extended lengths of stay. Crit Care Med. 1998; 26(2):252–259.