Show simple item record

dc.creatorPearlman, Robert A.en
dc.creatorMiles, Steven H.en
dc.creatorArnold, Robert M.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T18:47:57Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T18:47:57Zen
dc.date.created1993-09en
dc.date.issued1993-09en
dc.identifier10.1007/BF00995162en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationTheoretical Medicine. 1993 Sep; 14(3): 197-210.en
dc.identifier.issn0167-9902en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Contributions+of+Empirical+Research+to+Medical+Ethics&title=Theoretical+Medicine.++&volume=14&issue=3&pages=197-210&date=1993&au=Pearlman,+Robert+A.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00995162en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/742686en
dc.description.abstractEmpirical research pertaining to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), clinician behaviors related to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and substituted judgment suggests potential contributions to medical ethics. Research quantifying the likelihood of surviving CPR points to the need for further philosophical analysis of the limitations of patient autonomy in decision making, the nature and definition of medical futility, and the relationship between futility and professional standards. Research on DNR orders has identified barriers to the goal of patient involvement in these life and death discussions. The initial data on surrogate decision making also points to the need for a reexamination of the moral basis for substituted judgment, the moral authority of proxy decision making and the second-order status of the best interests standard. These examples of empirical research suggest that an interplay between empirical research, ethical analysis and policy development may represent a new form of interdisciplinary scholarship to improve clinical medicine.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:KIE/41588en
dc.subjectAllowing to Dieen
dc.subjectAutonomyen
dc.subjectBioethicsen
dc.subjectBiomedical Technologiesen
dc.subjectClinical Ethicsen
dc.subjectCommunicationen
dc.subjectConsenten
dc.subjectDeathen
dc.subjectDecision Makingen
dc.subjectDNR Ordersen
dc.subjectEmpirical Researchen
dc.subjectEthical Analysisen
dc.subjectEthical Theoryen
dc.subjectEthicsen
dc.subjectEvaluationen
dc.subjectEvaluation Studiesen
dc.subjectFamily Membersen
dc.subjectFutilityen
dc.subjectGuidelinesen
dc.subjectHospitalsen
dc.subjectInstitutional Policiesen
dc.subjectLifeen
dc.subjectLiteratureen
dc.subjectMedical Ethicsen
dc.subjectMedicineen
dc.subjectMethodsen
dc.subjectMoral Policyen
dc.subjectNatureen
dc.subjectPaternalismen
dc.subjectPatient Participationen
dc.subjectPatientsen
dc.subjectPhysiciansen
dc.subjectPrognosisen
dc.subjectProlongation of Lifeen
dc.subjectProxyen
dc.subjectProfessional Standardsen
dc.subjectQuality of Lifeen
dc.subjectRefusal to Treaten
dc.subjectResearchen
dc.subjectResuscitationen
dc.subjectResuscitation Ordersen
dc.subjectSelection for Treatmenten
dc.subjectSocial Sciencesen
dc.subjectStandardsen
dc.subjectSubstituted Judgmenten
dc.subjectSurrogate Decision Makingen
dc.subjectThird Party Consenten
dc.subjectTreatment Outcomeen
dc.subjectTreatment Refusalen
dc.subjectUncertaintyen
dc.subjectValuesen
dc.subjectWithholding Treatmenten
dc.titleContributions of Empirical Research to Medical Ethicsen
dc.provenanceDigital citation created by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University for the BIOETHICSLINE database, part of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics' Bioethics Information Retrieval Project funded by the United States National Library of Medicine.en
dc.provenanceDigital citation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named NBIO hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection BioethicsLine hosted by Georgetown University.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2022 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885