If the principal's wishes regarding artificial nutrition and hydration are not reasonably known, the agent shall not have authority to make decisions regarding these measures. Which statement best reflects this rule?

• A. The agent may decide according to personal beliefs
• B. The agent may act in the principal's best interests
• C. The agent shall not have authority to decide about artificial nutrition and hydration
• D. A court must decide the matter for artificial nutrition and hydration

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that a health care agent (the person who can make decisions for someone who can’t) can act only if the principal’s wishes about life-sustaining treatment are reasonably known. If those wishes aren’t known, the agent has no authority to decide about artificial nutrition and hydration. This protects the principal’s autonomy and prevents the agent from substituting the agent’s own beliefs for the principal’s values.

Why this is the best answer: when there is no reasonably known guidance from the principal, there isn’t a basis for the agent to determine whether to provide or withhold artificial nutrition and hydration. The rule makes clear that in that gap, the agent cannot unilaterally decide these life-sustaining measures.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: choosing to decide according to personal beliefs would override the principal’s lack of known wishes, which the rule rejects. Saying the agent should act in the principal’s best interests is too vague here; the specific restriction is that the agent has no authority to decide these measures when wishes aren’t known. Finally, saying a court must decide is not automatically required in every case; court involvement occurs in certain circumstances, but isn’t the default consequence of unknown wishes.