Futility and the ethics of resuscitation.
Recent recommendations that physicians be allowed to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation, without patient consent, from patients for whom it would be futile have drawn objections that such unilateral judgments would undermine respect for patient autonomy. These objections assume that since futility determinations involve value judgments, patient input is always required. However, certain sorts of value judgments must be made unilaterally by physicians as part of reasonable medical practice. Moreover, the mixed messages inherent in requesting patient consent to withhold futile therapy serve to undermine rather than to enhance autonomous choice. Real patient interests can better be saved by a broad public dialogue around judgments of medical reasonableness and medical futility, rather than concern for the form but not the substance of patient autonomy.
Tomlinson
T
T
Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48824.
Brody
H
H
D000328:Adult; D030881:Disclosure; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D028681:Moral Obligations; D010332:Paternal Behavior; D026706:Paternalism; D018579:Patient Selection; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D040841:Resource Allocation; D012151:Resuscitation / Q000592:standards*; D012297:Right to Die; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012941:Social Responsibility; D012945:Social Values; D028761:Withholding Treatment