Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Medical Futility

View through CrossRef
AbstractMedical futility is a concept that has been heavily debated since the late 1980s. It is increasingly invoked in end‐of‐life decision‐making as a way to both describe certain situations and to justify refusing treatment as a response to those situations. As the emphasis on patient autonomy has grown, so have demands for treatment that the medical team thinks are inappropriate because they are insufficiently beneficial. The concept of medical futility addresses these treatment demands. Futility judgments have been categorised as physiologic, quantitative and qualitative depending upon the nature of the claim being made. Despite an ongoing dialogue about the nature of these judgments, there is still widespread disagreement about the appropriate use of the concept as a justification for limiting treatment.Key Concepts:Medical futility is a concept used both to describe certain treatment and as a justification for refusing certain treatment.There is significant disagreement about exactly what medical futility means, in what situations it should be applied, and what justification it ultimately provides for refusing treatment.Medical futility can usefully be distinguished into physiological, quantitative and qualitative futility.The debate over medical futility can be seen as arising from several factors: the development of modern technology, the rise of patient autonomy as a dominant value in Western medicine, and growing concern with cost control.Medical futility can only be determined relative to particular goals and futility judgments require us to consider what we think the appropriate function and goals of medicine should be.Institutional policies about medical futility generally focus on fair procedures for resolving futility disagreements rather than on a universal definition.
Title: Medical Futility
Description:
AbstractMedical futility is a concept that has been heavily debated since the late 1980s.
It is increasingly invoked in end‐of‐life decision‐making as a way to both describe certain situations and to justify refusing treatment as a response to those situations.
As the emphasis on patient autonomy has grown, so have demands for treatment that the medical team thinks are inappropriate because they are insufficiently beneficial.
The concept of medical futility addresses these treatment demands.
Futility judgments have been categorised as physiologic, quantitative and qualitative depending upon the nature of the claim being made.
Despite an ongoing dialogue about the nature of these judgments, there is still widespread disagreement about the appropriate use of the concept as a justification for limiting treatment.
Key Concepts:Medical futility is a concept used both to describe certain treatment and as a justification for refusing certain treatment.
There is significant disagreement about exactly what medical futility means, in what situations it should be applied, and what justification it ultimately provides for refusing treatment.
Medical futility can usefully be distinguished into physiological, quantitative and qualitative futility.
The debate over medical futility can be seen as arising from several factors: the development of modern technology, the rise of patient autonomy as a dominant value in Western medicine, and growing concern with cost control.
Medical futility can only be determined relative to particular goals and futility judgments require us to consider what we think the appropriate function and goals of medicine should be.
Institutional policies about medical futility generally focus on fair procedures for resolving futility disagreements rather than on a universal definition.

Related Results

Predictors of futility outcomes after TAVI: insights from the France TAVI Registry
Predictors of futility outcomes after TAVI: insights from the France TAVI Registry
Abstract Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis and provi...
Commentary: Bringing Clarity to the Futility Debate: Are the Cases Wrong? Lawrence J. Schneiderman
Commentary: Bringing Clarity to the Futility Debate: Are the Cases Wrong? Lawrence J. Schneiderman
Howard Brody expresses concern that citing the “two cases that put futility on the map,” namely Helga Wanglie and Baby K, may be providing ammunition to the opponents of the con...
P071 COVID-19 Ethics and Gastroenterology
P071 COVID-19 Ethics and Gastroenterology
BACKGROUND: Ethical principles in the field of medicine have become increasingly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which practitioners are required to provi...
Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19
Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19
ImportanceThe efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.ObjectiveTo determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19.Design...
Medical tourism and healthcare trends in Thailand
Medical tourism and healthcare trends in Thailand
Medical tourism can be defined as the travel of patients from one country to another with the intention of receiving medical treatment. This is an increasing and important feature ...
Modern approach to automation of internal control of quality and safety of medical care
Modern approach to automation of internal control of quality and safety of medical care
Introduction. Heads of medical organizations operating under the Moscow Healthcare Department are the ones who take care of internal control of quality and safety of medical care [...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash Abstract This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...

Back to Top