Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 401–410 | Cite as

The self-fulfilling prophecy in intensive care

  • Dominic Wilkinson


Predictions of poor prognosis for critically ill patients may become self-fulfilling if life-sustaining treatment or resuscitation is subsequently withheld on the basis of that prediction. This paper outlines the epistemic and normative problems raised by self-fulfilling prophecies (SFPs) in intensive care. Where predictions affect outcome, it can be extremely difficult to ascertain the mortality rate for patients if all treatment were provided. SFPs may lead to an increase in mortality for cohorts of patients predicted to have poor prognosis, they may lead doctors to feel causally responsible for the deaths of their patients, and they may compromise honest communication with patients and families about prognosis. However, I argue that the self-fulfilling prophecy is inevitable when life-sustaining treatment is withheld or withdrawn in the face of uncertainty. SFPs do not necessarily make treatment limitation decisions problematic. To minimize the effects of SFPs, it is essential to carefully collect and appraise evidence about prognosis. Doctors need to be honest with themselves and with patients and their families about uncertainty and the limits of knowledge.


Prognosis Futility Withdrawing treatment Intensive care Clinical ethics Resuscitation orders 



Self-fulfilling Prophecy



I am grateful to Tony Hope, Julian Savulescu, Tom Douglas and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Dominic Wilkinson is supported by an Oxford Nuffield Medical Fellowship, Eric Burnard Fellowship, and Royal Australasian College of Physicians Astra-Zeneca Medical Fellowship. The funders had no involvement in this work.


  1. 1.
    Merton, Robert King. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Popper, Karl R. 2002. Unended quest: An intellectual autobiography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christakis, N.A. 2001. Prognostication and bioethics. Daedalus 128: 197–214.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mercurio, M.R. 2005. Physicians’ refusal to resuscitate at borderline gestational age. Journal of Perinatology 25: 685–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Embleton, N.D., J.P. Wyllie, M.J. Wright, J. Burn, and S. Hunter. 1996. Natural history of trisomy 18. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 75: F38–F41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mcgraw, M.P., and J. Perlman. 2008. Attitudes of neonatologists toward delivery room management of confirmed trisomy 18: Potential factors influencing a changing dynamic. Pediatrics 121: 1106–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becker, K.J., A.B. Baxter, W.A. Cohen, H.M. Bybee, D.L. Tirschwell, D.W. Newell, et al. 2001. Withdrawal of support in intracerebral hemorrhage may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Neurology 56: 766–772.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zandbergen, E.G., R.J. De Haan, C.P. Stoutenbeek, J.H. Koelman, and A. Hijdra. 1998. Systematic review of early prediction of poor outcome in anoxic ischaemic coma. Lancet 352: 1808–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook, D., G. Rocker, J. Marshall, P. Sjokvist, P. Dodek, L. Griffith, et al. 2003. Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in anticipation of death in the intensive care unit. The New England Journal of Medicine 349: 1123–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Truog, R., and W. Robinson. 2003. Role of brain death and the dead-donor rule in the ethics of organ transplantation. Critical Care Medicine 31: 2391–2396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hemphill, J.C. III 2007. Do-not-resuscitate orders, unintended consequences, and the ripple effect. Critical Care 11: 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sulmasy, D.P. 1999. Do patients die because they have DNR orders, or do they have DNR orders because they are going to die? Medical Care 37: 719–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christakis, Nicholas A. 1999. Death foretold: Prophecy and prognosis in medical care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, Cecil. 1961. The self-fulfilling prophecy: A reappraisal. Ethics 72: 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bernat, J.L. 2009. Ethical issues in the treatment of severe brain injury: The impact of new technologies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1157: 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carter, B.G., and W. Butt. 2005. Are somatosensory evoked potentials the best predictor of outcome after severe brain injury? A systematic review. Intensive Care Medicine 31: 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sleigh, J.W., J.H. Havill, R. Frith, D. Kersel, N. Marsh, and D. Ulyatt. 1999. Somatosensory evoked potentials in severe traumatic brain injury: A blinded study. Journal of Neurosurgery 91: 577–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rabinstein, A.A., and M.N. Diringer. 2007. Withholding care in intracerebral hemorrhage: Realistic compassion or self-fulfilling prophecy? Neurology 68: 1647–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, Y.Y., A.F. Connors Jr., and A. Garland. 2008. Effect of decisions to withhold life support on prolonged survival. Chest 133: 1312–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shepardson, L.B., S.J. Youngner, T. Speroff, and G.E. Rosenthal. 1999. Increased risk of death in patients with do-not-resuscitate orders. Medical Care 37: 727–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tyson, J.E., N.A. Parikh, J. Langer, C. Green, and R.D. Higgins. 2008. Intensive care for extreme prematurity—moving beyond gestational age. The New England Journal of Medicine 358: 1672–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Persson, I. 2008. A consequentialist distinction between what we ought to do and ought to try. Utilitas 20: 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parfit, D. 2008. On what matters (unpublished manuscript) Accessed 28 July 2009.
  24. 24.
    Costeloe, K., E. Hennessy, A.T. Gibson, N. Marlow, and A.R. Wilkinson. 2000. The EPICure study: Outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 106: 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Savulescu, J. 1994. Treatment limitation decisions under uncertainty: The value of subsequent euthanasia. Bioethics 8: 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilkinson, D. 2009. The window of opportunity: Decision theory and the timing of prognostic tests for newborn infants. Bioethics 23: 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ethox Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Health CareThe University of OxfordHeadingtonUK
  2. 2.Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical EthicsThe University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations