Terri Schiavo, Son Hudson, and 'nonbeneficial' medical treatments.
Two disputed cases about withholding life support (Terri Schiavo and Son Hudson) call for greater public discussion. Confusion arises from intermixing three kinds of cases: those (1) in which demanded treatment is physiologically futile, (2) involving competition for scarce resources, and (3) in which the treatment would likely achieve the patient's goals although the clinician perceives those goals to be valueless. This Perspective argues that clinicians should unilaterally refuse the first but do not have legitimate roles in blocking access to the second and third. Absent scarcity, patients should have access to effective life-prolonging treatments even if clinicians see no value in them.
Veatch
Robert M
RM
Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, in Washington, DC, USA. veatchr@georgetown.edu
D003657:Decision Making; D033061:Ethics Consultation; D005260:Female; D006292:Health Priorities; D006801:Humans; D033222:Judicial Role; D007872:Legal Guardians / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008297:Male; D018447:Medical Futility / Q000941:ethics; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D009014:Morals; D018458:Persistent Vegetative State; D040841:Resource Allocation; D014481:United States; D026712:Value of Life