WITHHOLDING FUTILE TREATMENT

2021 ◽  
pp. 173-182
Author(s):  
Han Yee Neo
Keyword(s):  
2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
Chris Danbury ◽  
Chris Newdick

JAMA ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 307 (5) ◽  
pp. 514
Author(s):  
Andrew Thompson
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Zhizheng DU

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.儘管醫學在飛速進步,但由於種種原因,放棄治療在臨床中有日益增多的趨勢。放棄治療是人們的一種理性選擇。合理的放棄治療是醫學人道主義在某種特殊情況下的理性表現。區分放棄治療的不同情況,正確界定放棄治療的範圍,合理選擇放棄治療的措施,確保不發生不應放棄治療的病人被放棄,在全過程中始終尊重病人的自主權,妥善處理對於是否放棄中的分岐,並維護病人的整體利益,是履行放棄治療中倫理學應予充分注意的問題。Many believe that giving up treatment always conflicts with physicians' duty and responsibility. However, although societies have achieved the rapid advancing of medical sciences and technologies, and although patients and families sometimes want to maintain life-sustaining interventions at any cost, renunciation of futile treatment remains an unavoidable issue facing physicians in their clinical practice. This is especially the case for Chinese society today. This paper argues that withdrawing life-sustaining therapy is not always opposite to moral requirement.Specifically, the paper explores the following important issues around the decision making of renouncing treatment. First, in what medical situation does the patient and the family's request for withdrawing treatment should be granted by the physician? this paper contents that a necessary condition must be that the patient suffers an incurable disease. Second, who has the right to make the decision of renouncing treatment? This paper argues that, in considerations of Chinese ethical and societal character, some practical measures should be establishes in Chinese society medical and moral consideration should all be balanced and integrated. Finally, in order to avoid unnecessary ambiguities and disputes, this paper suggests that legal and administrative procedures and guidelines should be adopted regarding the decision of renouncing treatment.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 31 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


Author(s):  
Yongsong GUO

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English.對於沒有臨床救治希望的病人,要不要繼續治療?誰有最終的決定權?這既是臨床醫療問題,又是一個涉及社會倫理法規的問題。對於這樣的病人,不放棄治療可能意味著要消耗更多的醫療資源但又無法挽救病人,但是如果放棄治療,可能會遇到更多的來自社會傳統的、倫理法規的問題。筆者認為,在社會多元化發展的今天,面對臨床無效治療,應在尊重病人或病人家屬有最終決定權的前提下,以一定道德、法規為依據,按照一定的醫療程式和法律手續進行處理,可能是更為符合人道和社會公眾利益的理性選擇。There has not been a clear medical definition of futility. The concept of futile treatment involves not only medical, but also social, ethical, and legal components. This paper argues that in today's pluralistic moral circumstances, the patient and/or the family should have the final right to decision regarding futile treatment.Some are opposed to renouncing futile treatment, whatever futility is defined. For them, first, abandoning treatment is in conflict with the physician's basic duty of offering treatment. Second, giving up treatment also gives up the chance of making medical progress by attempting to treat the patient. Third, the patient would thereby lose the opportunity of prolonging the life. And finally, it would change the good image of the physician (as taking care of the patient). On the other hand, those who support renouncing futile treatment offer different reasons. First, giving up futile treatment will turn out to be respecting the value of the patient's life. Second, It would help people recognize the natural limit of contemporary medical development. Third, it would facilitate a reasonable pattern of distributing scarce medical resources. And finally, it could reduce the suffering of the patient. As a result, we face a social situation of moral pluralism: people disagree with each other regarding renouncing futile treatment.A difficult practical issue is who has the right to decide renouncing futile treatment. This paper argues that, giving individuals hold conflicting views of life, valoue and morality, the patient should have the final decision power regarding his/her own treatment. If the patient is incompetent, then the family should have the deciding right. In this respect we should overcome the longstanding medical paternalism. In addition, society should establish a prcocedure to regulate and facilitate the decision-mading of renouncing futile treatment.DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 16 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.


2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aslihan Akpinar ◽  
Muesser Ozcan Senses ◽  
Rahime Aydin Er

The aim of this study was to assess attitudes of intensive care nurses to selected ethical issues related to end-of-life decisions in paediatric intensive care units. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in 2005 to intensive care nurses at two different scientific occasions in Turkey. Of the 155 intensive care nurse participants, 98% were women. Fifty-three percent of these had intensive care experience of more than four years. Most of the nurses failed to agree about withholding (65%) or withdrawing (60%) futile treatment. In addition, 68% agreed that intravenous nutrition must continue at all costs. In futile treatment cases, the nurses tended to leave the decision to parents or act maternalistically. The results showed that intensive care nurses could ignore essential ethical duties in end-of-life care. We suggest that it is necessary to educate Turkish intensive care nurses about ethical issues at the end of life.


2013 ◽  
Vol 198 (4) ◽  
pp. 223-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic J C Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document