Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-dh8xm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-29T23:57:25.416Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Two responses to “Physician Refusal of Requests for Futile or Ineffective Interventions,” by John J. Paris and Frank E. Reardon (CQ Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 127–134)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2009


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Commentaries and Dialogue
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



1. Paris, JJ, Reardon, FE.Physician refusal of requests for futile or ineffective interventions. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1992;1:127134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Bergsma, J.Towards a concept of shared autonomy. Theoretical Medicine 1984;5:325–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Van der, Berg JH.Medische Macht en Medische Ethiek [Medical Power and Medical Ethics.] Nijkerk, The Netherlands: Callenbuch, 1965.Google Scholar

4. Rosenthal, E.New rules for saving the dying are being misused, doctors say. New york Times 1990 10. 4:B20.Google Scholar

5. See note 1. Paris, Reardon.Google Scholar

6. See note 1.Google Scholar

7. See note 1.Google Scholar

8. See note 1.Google Scholar

9. See note 1.Google Scholar