Law, medicine & health care : a publication of the American Society of Law & Medicine
-
Law Med Health Care · Jan 1992
Treatment decisions for terminally ill patients: physicians' legal defensiveness and knowledge of medical law.
In this study, we investigated physicians' attitudes, knowledge, and reported practices regarding the effects of perceived legal constraints on the abatement of life-sustaining treatment from patients who are clearly dying. A factor in assessing these issues is the concept of defensive medicine -- that is the perception that doctors are being forced to order every possible laboratory test and second opinion, or to continue providing non-beneficial life-sustaining treatment, solely to protect themselves from future legal claims. This perception appears widespread among practicing physicians. ⋯ This phenomenon encompasses medical, legal, social, psychological, and spiritual factors interacting in ways that are not fully understood. We remain cognizant of the potential impact of all these factors. For purposes of this article, however, we have chosen to focus on legal and psychological aspects of physicians' reluctance to abate treatment and the corresponding ethical implications.
-
"Medical futility" may be provisionally defined as a medical conclusion that a therapy is of no value to a patient and should not be prescribed. The current debate about medical futility is one of the most important and contentious in medical ethics. Proponents believe that allowing physicians to determine and withhold futile therapies can be done without disturbing the current paradigm of medical ethics which respects patient autonomy with regard to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment. ⋯ It has two aspects. A definitional debate examines the concept of medical futility and its derived clinical criteria. A second debate considers the nature of the authority and procedures to act on the conclusion that a therapy is futile by withholding or withdrawing treatment.
-
Law Med Health Care · Jan 1992
Required reconsideration of "do-not-resuscitate" orders in the operating room and certain other treatment settings.
It is time to change the assumption that DNR orders apply in every treatment setting in the hospital. It is appropriate to mandate not only that these orders be reconsidered on the basis of time, but also on the basis of setting. ⋯ While this will make patient transition from one hospital setting to another more complicated, it will allow patients to receive treatment directed toward their individual needs, immediate treatment objectives, and long-term treatment goals. It will also assure health care professionals that they will not be required to withhold treatment essential for meeting patients' treatment objectives in these settings.