CE: “Medically futile” treatments require more than going to court

Karen Trotochaud RN, MN
{"title":"CE: “Medically futile” treatments require more than going to court","authors":"Karen Trotochaud RN, MN","doi":"10.1016/j.casemgr.2006.04.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>With the unrelenting development of new medical technologies and increasingly more complex treatments, health-care providers sometimes find themselves faced with requests to provide treatments they believe to be medically futile. This language and resulting argument based on it can produce an adversarial posturing on the part of providers and families that frequently anticipates or threatens a legal solution. Although our legal system will choose sides on an issue, futility cases that have ended up in the courts have generally failed to definitively answer questions about how to address future dilemmas. A more helpful process is a clear procedure for addressing both sides of the question with the ultimate decision-making remaining within the health-care setting. The ethically appropriate solution lies within the context of a shared decision-making process between patient/family and physician/health-care provider that honors the values of both parties without assuming a unilateral decision-making stance. Case managers and direct-care providers, when faced with requests for treatments deemed to be medically inappropriate or futile, are challenged to understand and pursue this shared process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":80307,"journal":{"name":"The Case manager","volume":"17 3","pages":"Pages 60-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.casemgr.2006.04.009","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Case manager","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1061925906001780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

With the unrelenting development of new medical technologies and increasingly more complex treatments, health-care providers sometimes find themselves faced with requests to provide treatments they believe to be medically futile. This language and resulting argument based on it can produce an adversarial posturing on the part of providers and families that frequently anticipates or threatens a legal solution. Although our legal system will choose sides on an issue, futility cases that have ended up in the courts have generally failed to definitively answer questions about how to address future dilemmas. A more helpful process is a clear procedure for addressing both sides of the question with the ultimate decision-making remaining within the health-care setting. The ethically appropriate solution lies within the context of a shared decision-making process between patient/family and physician/health-care provider that honors the values of both parties without assuming a unilateral decision-making stance. Case managers and direct-care providers, when faced with requests for treatments deemed to be medically inappropriate or futile, are challenged to understand and pursue this shared process.

CE:“医学上无效”的治疗需要的不仅仅是上法庭
随着新医疗技术的不断发展和越来越复杂的治疗方法,卫生保健提供者有时发现自己面临着提供他们认为在医学上无效的治疗的要求。这种语言和由此产生的基于它的争论可能会产生提供者和家庭的对抗姿态,他们经常期望或威胁法律解决方案。虽然我们的法律体系会在一个问题上选择支持哪一方,但最终在法庭上结束的无效案件通常都无法明确回答如何解决未来困境的问题。一个更有帮助的进程是制定一个明确的程序,处理问题的两个方面,最终决策仍由保健机构作出。在道德上适当的解决办法是在病人/家属和医生/保健提供者之间共同决策过程的背景下,尊重双方的价值观,而不采取单方面的决策立场。病例管理人员和直接护理提供者在面对被认为在医学上不适当或无效的治疗请求时,面临着理解和追求这一共同过程的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信