A thirty-eight-year-old intoxicated man was admitted to the surgical trauma service following a single motor-vehicle accident. He had a severe closed head injury, bilateral pulmonary contusions, a fracture-dislocation of the right acetabulum, and an open injury of the right knee joint. The acetabular fracture pattern was an associated both-column fracture with the femoral head dislocated into a widely displaced posterior-column fracture line. The treating physicians agreed that it would be in the patient's best interest to take him to the operating room for emergent debridement and irrigation of his knee wound. At surgery, the patient also underwent attempted closed reduction of the acetabular fracture and placement of a skeletal traction pin. Radiographs obtained with the patient in traction showed reduction of the femoral head beneath a displaced superior dome fragment, but there remained a 12-mm gap in the posterior column, greater than 3 mm of step incongruity, and a large articular fragment entrapped in the anterior aspect of the hip joint. The patient remained intubated and sedated for several days. Upon weaning from the ventilator, it became evident that his head injury would prevent him from being able to give informed consent in the foreseeable future. The patient's family members refused to become involved with his care or medical decision-making, as he had become completely estranged from them as a result of his chronic alcohol abuse. Further delay in surgical treatment for the acetabular fracture would be associated with greater difficulty in obtaining an anatomic reduction, the potential for additional articular damage to the femoral head, and an increased risk of surgical complications. The question that arises is whether it is in the patient's best interest for the surgeon to proceed with open reduction and internal fixation of the acetabular fracture without having had the opportunity to fully inform him of the treatment options or the risks associated with an extensive surgical exposure.