Journal of medical ethics
-
Journal of medical ethics · Mar 1991
ReviewForegoing prehospital care: should ambulance staff always resuscitate?
Approximately 400,000 people die outside US hospitals or chronic care facilities each year. While there has been some recent movement towards initiating procedures for prehospital Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, the most common situation in the US is that emergency medical systems (EMS) personnel are not authorized to pronounce patients dead, but are required to attempt resuscitation with all of the modalities at their disposal in virtually all patients. It is unfair and probably unrealistic for EMS personnel to have to make a determination of the validity of a non-standard prehospital DNR order (for example, a living will or a durable power of attorney for health care). ⋯ Functioning prehospital DNR systems need to include: 1) specific legislation detailing the circumstances in which such a document could be used, the wording of such a document, and protection from liability for those implementing the document's directives; 2) having the currently valid document immediately available to the EMS personnel or base station doctors; and 3) acceptable means of identifying the patient. Relatively few US jurisdictions as yet have a prehospital DNR order system, although it is an idea whose time is overdue. Society's imperative to use available technology has pushed us into a situation where a technique to save those with a potential to continue a meaningful and wanted existence is being used indiscriminately to prolong the agony of death.
-
The problem of resource allocation in health has stimulated much thought and research, in attempts to provide objective, rational methods by which necessary choices can be made. One such method was proposed in a paper in this journal. ⋯ This paper argues that the evidence supporting such a claim was flawed; such a utilitarian approach is not socially acceptable, and is therefore not relevant. Rather more relevant directions for research are discussed, based on the assertion that a degree of realism is essential when considering the problems of resource allocation.
-
Journal of medical ethics · Jun 1990
CommentTwo philosophers in search of a contradiction: a response to Singer and Kuhse.
Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse reject my claim that because their views on the mortality of infanticide are metaphysically incommensurate with those of Paul Ramsey they cannot refute his position. According to them, I have failed to see that Ramsey contradicts himself. Once this is seen, no further refutation is needed. I argue that there is no contradiction and offer further thoughts on the metaphysically incommensurate.
-
The progress of the discussion about the 'indicators of humanhood' is reviewed, along with several associated problems. It is argued that a more serious problem is posed by social attitudes about mental handicap. The author concludes that an uncritical use of criteria of humanhood may simply reinforce a morally unjustifiable social attitude.
-
Journal of medical ethics · Dec 1988
Resolving arguments about the sanctity of life: a response to Long.
Thomas Long has argued that there is an irreconcilable metaphysical difference between the views of those who, like ourselves, believe that on quality-of-life grounds it is sometimes justifiable to end the life of a severely handicapped infant, and those who, like Paul Ramsey, reject this view. Because of this metaphysical difference, Long considers it impossible for our arguments to refute Ramsey's position. We disagree.