DOES PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY PROTECT MEDICAL FUTILITY JUDGMENTS?

Despite substantial controversy, the use of futility judgments in medicine is quite common, and has been backed by the implementation of hospital policies and professional guidelines on medical futility. The controversy arises when health care professionals (HCPs) consider a treatment futile which p...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gampel, Eric (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Wiley-Blackwell 2006
In: Bioethics
Year: 2006, Volume: 20, Issue: 2, Pages: 92-104
Further subjects:B End-of-life
B Futility
B Rationing
B Autonomy
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1781879834
003 DE-627
005 20211211042751.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 211211s2006 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00480.x  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1781879834 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1781879834 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Gampel, Eric  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a DOES PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY PROTECT MEDICAL FUTILITY JUDGMENTS? 
264 1 |c 2006 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Despite substantial controversy, the use of futility judgments in medicine is quite common, and has been backed by the implementation of hospital policies and professional guidelines on medical futility. The controversy arises when health care professionals (HCPs) consider a treatment futile which patients or families believe to be worthwhile: should HCPs be free to refuse treatments in such a case, or be required to provide them? Most physicians seem convinced that professional autonomy protects them from being forced to provide treatments they judge medically futile, given the lack of patient benefit as well as the waste of medical resources involved. The argument from professional autonomy has been presented in a number of articles, but it has not been subjected to much critical scrutiny. In this paper I distinguish three versions of the argument: 1) that each physician should be free to exercise his or her own medical judgment; 2) that the medical profession as a whole may provide futility standards to govern the practice of its members; and 3) that the moral integrity of each physician serves as a limit to treatment demands. I maintain that none of these versions succeeds in overcoming the standard objection that futility determinations involve value judgments best left to the patients, their designated surrogates, or their families. Nor do resource considerations change this fact, since they should not influence the properly patient-centered judgment about futility. 
601 |a Autonomie 
650 4 |a Rationing 
650 4 |a End-of-life 
650 4 |a Autonomy 
650 4 |a Futility 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Bioethics  |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987  |g 20(2006), 2, Seite 92-104  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)271596708  |w (DE-600)1480658-7  |w (DE-576)078707986  |x 1467-8519  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:20  |g year:2006  |g number:2  |g pages:92-104 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00480.x  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00480.x  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4019002819 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1781879834 
LOK |0 005 20211211042751 
LOK |0 008 211211||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-10#57F73CC6DB539FAD3147625FA6929C364BEC4C11 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw