Show simple item record

dc.creatorSulmasy, Daniel P.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T18:57:42Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T18:57:42Zen
dc.date.created1997-03en
dc.date.issued1997-03en
dc.identifier10.1007/978-94-017-3364-9en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationTheoretical Medicine. 1997 Mar-Jun; 18(1-2): 63-78.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=Futility+and+the+Varieties+of+Medical+Judgment&title=Theoretical+Medicine.++&volume=18&issue=1-2&pages=63-78&date=1997&au=Sulmasy,+Daniel+P.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3364-9en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/749606en
dc.description.abstractPellegrino has argued that end-of-life decisions should be based upon the physician's assessment of the effectiveness of the treatment and the patient's assessment of its benefits and burdens. This would seem to imply that conditions for medical futility could be met either if there were a judgment of ineffectiveness, or if the patient were in a state in which he or she were incapable of a subjective judgment of the benefits and burdens of the treatment. I argue that a theory of futility according to Pellegrino would deny that latter but would permit some cases of the former. I call this the "circumspect" view. I show that Pellegrino would adopt the circumspect view because he would see the medical futility debate in the context of a system of medical ethics based firmly upon a philosophy of medicine. The circumspect view is challenged by those who would deny that one can distinguish objective from subjective medical judgments. I defend the circumspect view on the basis of a previously neglected aspect of the philosophy of medicine -- an examination of varieties of medical judgment. I then offer some practical applications of this theory in clinical practice.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:MEDKIE/97275606en
dc.subjectAllowing to Dieen
dc.subjectAutonomyen
dc.subjectCommunicationen
dc.subjectCompassionen
dc.subjectConscienceen
dc.subjectConsenten
dc.subjectDecision Makingen
dc.subjectDissenten
dc.subjectEthicsen
dc.subjectEvidence-Based Medicineen
dc.subjectFamily Membersen
dc.subjectFutilityen
dc.subjectGoalsen
dc.subjectHealthen
dc.subjectHealth Personnelen
dc.subjectLifeen
dc.subjectMedical Ethicsen
dc.subjectMedicineen
dc.subjectPaternalismen
dc.subjectPersistent Vegetative Stateen
dc.subjectPhilosophyen
dc.subjectPhysiciansen
dc.subjectPrognosisen
dc.subjectProlongation of Lifeen
dc.subjectQuality of Lifeen
dc.subjectRefusal to Treaten
dc.subjectResource Allocationen
dc.subjectRisks and Benefitsen
dc.subjectStatisticsen
dc.subjectTechnical Expertiseen
dc.subjectTerminal Careen
dc.subjectThird Party Consenten
dc.subjectTreatment Outcomeen
dc.subjectTrusten
dc.subjectUncertaintyen
dc.subjectValuesen
dc.subjectWithholding Treatmenten
dc.titleFutility and the Varieties of Medical Judgmenten
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