Abstract
In the United States, patient autonomy is generally considered the most important ethical principle; however, patients sometimes make decisions that are medically futile or in conflict with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Difficult issues are often compounded if the patient loses capacity and a surrogate must provide substituted judgments. Allowing autonomy free reign can sometimes be detrimental to patient care and contribute to family distress. Here, we describe the case of a terminally ill patient whose conflicting desires were to have "everything" done--including cardiopulmonary resuscitation--and to simultaneously avoid hospitalization and die peacefully at home.