Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T13:26:34.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 15 - Potentially Inappropriate Treatment and Medical Futility

from Section 2 - Consultation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

By
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Edited by
D. Micah Hester  and
Toby L. Schonfeld
D. Micah Hester
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine
Toby L. Schonfeld
Affiliation:
National Center for Ethics in Health Care, US Department of Veterans Affairs
Get access

Summary

Like Mr. B, hospitalized patients at the end of life frequently lack decision-making capacity. So, decisions regarding their treatment are usually made by surrogate decision makers (Chapter 13). A potentially inappropriate treatment (PIT) dispute is typically described as a situation in which a surrogate wants to continue the patient’s nonpalliative treatment (usually life-sustaining treatment) but the healthcare provider wants to stop (Bosslet et al., 2015). Providers normally need consent to withhold or withdraw treatment. Therefore, to resolve PIT disputes, providers must: (1) accede to the surrogate, (2) obtain consent, or (3) find a legitimate basis to withhold or withdraw treatment without consent.

Type
Chapter
Information
Guidance for Healthcare Ethics Committees , pp. 129 - 139
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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.)

References

American Medical Association. (1999). Medical futility in end-of-life care: Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. JAMA, 281(10): 937–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosslet, GT, Pope, TM, Rubenfeld, GD, et al. (2015). An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: Responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 191(11): 1318–1330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, TV, Scheunemann, LP, Arnold, RM, White, D (2018). How do clinicians prepare family members for the role of surrogate decision-maker? Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(1): 21–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joseph, R (2011). Hospital policy on medical futility: Does it help in conflict resolution and ensuring good end-of-life care? Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 40(1): 19–25.Google Scholar
Luce, JM (2010). A history of resolving conflicts over end-of-life care in intensive care units in the United States. Critical Care Medicine, 38(8): 1623–1629.Google Scholar
Pope, TM (2007). Medical futility statutes: No safe harbor to unilaterally refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. Tennessee Law Review, 75(1): 1–81.Google Scholar
Pope, TM (2010). Surrogate selection: An increasingly viable, but limited, solution to intractable futility disputes. St. Louis University Journal of Health Law and Policy, 3(2): 183–252.Google Scholar
Pope, TM (2017). Brain death forsaken: Growing conflict and new legal challenges. Journal of Legal Medicine, 37(3–4): 265–324.Google Scholar
Rosoff, PM (2013). Institutional futility policies are inherently unfair. HEC Forum, 25(3): 191–209.Google Scholar
Schneiderman, LJ, Jecker, NS (2011). Wrong Medicine: Doctors, Patients, and Futile Treatment, 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Truog, R, Brett, AS, Frader, J (1992). The problem with futility. New England Journal of Medicine, 326(23): 1560–1564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, DJ, Savulescu, J (2011). Knowing when to stop: Futility in the ICU. Current Opinions in Anaesthesiology, 24(2): 160–165.Google Scholar
Zier, LS, Burack, JH, Micco, G, Chipman, AK, Frank, JA, White, DB (2009). Surrogate decision makers’ responses to physicians’ predictions of medical futility. Chest, 136(1): 110–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×