Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T19:20:27.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - When religious beliefs and medical judgments conflict: civic polity and the social good

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2009

Marjorie B. Zucker
Affiliation:
Choice In Dying, New York
Howard D. Zucker
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York
Alexander Morgan Capron
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access

Summary

The futility debate

Medical futility as a justification for unilateral physician refusal of requested treatment is an enormous shift from the norm of shared patient–physician decision making (Alpers and Lo 1995). In the ordinary course of events, the joint decision process involves the physician making a diagnosis, forming a prognosis, and, on the basis of experience, providing a recommendation. The patient, using personal values, can accept or reject the proposed treatment. If the recommended treatment is rejected, the patient and physician might negotiate for another course of treatment. When agreement is not possible, the patient may go to another physician or – as one-third of Americans now do – seek help from nontraditional sources (Eisenberg et al. 1993).

The idea of shared decision making is itself a radical departure from the long-standing paternalist stance of medicine, which holds that the physician alone makes the medical choices. That standard was so well established in the early history of medicine that Hippocrates exhorted physicians to “reveal nothing of the patient's future or present condition lest the patient falter and take a turn for the worse” (Hippocratic Corpus 1923). Paternalism gradually gave way to patient involvement in medical decisions. Part of this process is the requirement that the patient give informed consent before any procedure can be undertaken. Under that standard, patients have a right to be informed about the range of available alternatives and to choose among those that are offered (Faden and Beauchamp 1986).

Type
Chapter
Information
Medical Futility
And the Evaluation of Life-Sustaining Interventions
, pp. 85 - 97
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1997

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.)

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
×