 |
|
The Patient's Response to Medical Futility
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1565-1566.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
DESPITE YEARS of debate by bioethicists about the concept of medical futility, until now no one has tried to assess the reactions of patients with serious illness to its application.1 One reason may be that this type of study is technically difficult to perform. Outcome variables are hard to define, consistent data difficult to gather, and interview questionnaires hard to validate. Another reason is difficulty with the definition of futility. Withholding futile treatments supports the ethical principles of both nonmaleficence (do no harm) and beneficence (relieve suffering).
Some ethicists argue that invoking the principle of futility is in direct conflict with the principle of patient autonomy. During the past decade, patients and their families have become increasingly involved in end-of-life decisions, both in hospitals and in the courts. The courts have usually ruled in favor of the patient's right to autonomy, especially in cases regarding withholding or withdrawing unwanted . . . [Full Text of this Article]
RELATED ARTICLES
The Attitudes of Patients With Advanced AIDS Toward Use of the Medical Futility Rationale in Decisions to Forgo Mechanical Ventilation
J. Randall Curtis, Donald L. Patrick, Ellen S. Caldwell, and Ann C. Collier
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(11):1597-1601.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Why Don't Patients and Physicians Talk About End-of-Life Care?: Barriers to Communication for Patients With Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome and Their Primary Care Clinicians
J. Randall Curtis, Donald L. Patrick, Ellen S. Caldwell, and Ann C. Collier
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(11):1690-1696.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Abuse of Futility
Schneiderman et al.
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:128-130.
FULL TEXT
|
