 |
|
Muslim and Jewish Perspectives on Inappropriate Treatment at the End of Life—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
We appreciate the response of Handzo and Jacobs to our article on conflicts between religious convictions and clinical judgment in end-of-life medical care.1 However, they have misrepresented our intent. For example, they refer to our position as "confronting the family" when in fact we explicitly stated that "the goal is exploration of alternatives, not confrontation."1(p1648) In addition, they state that we have underplayed the role of chaplains, when in fact we indicated repeatedly that involvement of chaplains or clergy is desirable.
Handzo and Jacobs agree with us that a physician is not obligated to provide medically inappropriate care simply because it is demanded on religious grounds, yet they believe that physicians should never discuss the religious reasoning that underlies the family's demand for inappropriate care. What, then, would they have the physician do? Should the physician simply tell the family that the intervention will not be provided, without . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Allan S. Brett, MD;
Paul Jersild, ThD
Columbia, SC
RELATED ARTICLES
Muslim and Jewish Perspectives on Inappropriate Treatment at the End of Life
Shabbir M. H. Alibhai and Michael Gordon
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(8):916-917.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
"Inappropriate" Treatment Near the End of Life: Conflict Between Religious Convictions and Clinical Judgment
Allan S. Brett and Paul Jersild
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(14):1645-1649.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
