‘Moral luck’ and the question of autonomy, choice, and control in end-of-life decision making

It is commonly assumed that, in the realm of ethical decision making at the end-of-life, ‘luck’ and ‘risk’ do not intrude. Nonetheless ‘moral luck’ (where happenstance makes a moral difference) does intrude and can have an unanticipated impact on the ultimate moral outcomes of end-of-life care. In the interests of upholding the ethical standards of end-of-life care, healthcare providers have increasingly relied on ethical principlism as a rational decision-guiding frame in the sincere belief that such an approach will enable patient selfdetermination and control over treatment decisions when needing end-of-life care. Due to contextual variables and associated uncertainties in end-of-life care, however, the intended moral outcomes of appeals to commonly accepted ethical principles (in particular the principle of autonomy) are not always realized. What is not always appreciated is that whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’ moral outcomes are achieved can be as much a matter of chance as of choice. This essay explores the relevance and possible implications of moral luck in end-of-life decision making and care. A key conclusion of the paper is that the notion of moral luck needs to be taken seriously in end-of-life care contexts since it can have an unanticipated impact on the outcomes of the decisions that are made and thereby on the moral interests of patients facing the end of their lives.