Extrajudicial Resolution of Medical Futility Disputes

2021 ◽  
pp. 180-201
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Alexander Morgan Capron
Keyword(s):  

HEC Forum ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy S. Jecker

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-106977
Author(s):  
Christoph Becker ◽  
Alessandra Manzelli ◽  
Alexander Marti ◽  
Hasret Cam ◽  
Katharina Beck ◽  
...  

Guidelines recommend a ‘do-not-resuscitate’ (DNR) code status for inpatients in which cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) attempts are considered futile because of low probability of survival with good neurological outcome. We retrospectively assessed the prevalence of DNR code status and its association with presumed CPR futility defined by the Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score and the Clinical Frailty Scale in patients hospitalised in the Divisions of Internal Medicine and Traumatology/Orthopedics at the University Hospital of Basel between September 2018 and June 2019. The definition of presumed CPR futility was met in 467 (16.2%) of 2889 patients. 866 (30.0%) patients had a DNR code status. In a regression model adjusted for age, gender, main diagnosis, nationality, language and religion, presumed CPR futility was associated with a higher likelihood of a DNR code status (37.3% vs 7.1%, adjusted OR 2.99, 95% CI 2.31 to 3.88, p<0.001). In the subgroup of patients with presumed futile CPR, 144 of 467 (30.8%) had a full code status, which was independently associated with younger age, male gender, non-Christian religion and non-Swiss citizenship. We found a significant proportion of hospitalised patients to have a full code status despite the fact that CPR had to be considered futile according to an established definition. Whether these decisions were based on patient preferences or whether there was a lack of patient involvement in decision-making needs further investigation.


1993 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Paris

The issue of physician refusal of requested treatment has fueled a two-pronged debate in our society-one on the meaning of futility and the other on the limits of patient autonomy. The latter is a genuinely philosophic dispute; the former, it seems, is a modern relapse into nominalism.It is not the meaning of a word, but the moral basis for the actions of the par-ticipants that should be the focus of our attention, Yet the medical literature distracts us with articles titled “Medical Futility: Its Meaning and Ethical Implica-tions” “The Problem with Futility” “Who Defines Futility?,” “The Illusion of Futility,” and even “Beyond Futility.”The history of the futility debate, which was launched by a 1983 study of Bedell and Delbanco that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of CPR for certain catego-ries of patients, has been documented elsewhere. Here we will inquire if the term, and its rapid intrusion into the medical lexicon, serves a useful purpose or if, as Truog suggested, we would all be better off if this new buzzword were jettisoned.


2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 399-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIJKE C. JANSEN-VAN DER WEIDE, ◽  
BREGJE D. ONWUTEAKA-PHILIPSEN ◽  
GERRIT VAN DER WAL

Objective: This study investigated the palliative options available when a patient requested euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS), the extent to which the options were applied, and changes in the patient's wishes.Methods: In an observational study, 3614 general practitioners (GPs) filled in a questionnaire and described their most recent request for EAS (if any) (n = 1,681).Results: Palliative options were still available in 25% of cases. In these cases options were applied in 63%; in 46% of these cases patients withdrew their request. Medication other than antibiotics, which was most frequently mentioned as a palliative option (67%), and applied most frequently (79%), together with radiotherapy, most frequently resulted in patients withdrawing their request.Significance of results: GPs include the availability of palliative options in their decision making when considering EAS. The fact that not all options are applied or, if applied, the patient persists in the request is related to autonomy of the patient, the burden on the patient, and medical futility of the option.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document