 |
 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 March 2004 | Volume 140 Issue 5 | Page 404
Berger suggests that the term futility "defies meaningful or clinically useful definition" and suggests that medically appropriate is the better term. Finucane, on the other hand, acknowledges that futility may have qualitative and/or physiologic components, but he goes on to suggest that futility is a "smokescreen." Our experience suggests that although some find futility difficult to define, most physicians now know it when they see it (to paraphrase the late Justice Potter Stewart). We find the term useful not as a smokescreen, but as a quick reference to a class of patients who cannot recover or get well, who are either suffering or unable to appreciate the benefit or joy in being alive, and who cannot die easily or peacefully without permission. These are the same patients argued about in the "right-to-die" cases from Quinlan (1976) through Cruzan (1990). The parties seeking to allow death by withholding one or more life-sustaining treatments merely changed from family to medical team.
We find the word futility useful for quick communication and often modify it with the words physiologic or qualitative in an effort to strive for some clarity about the concepts. The law actually uses the words medically inappropriate rather than futility. Regardless of one's choice of words, we argue that following a legislatively endorsed process is more important. It is this process that ultimately protects all parties and allows for the evolution of a community standard for limitation of futile or medically inappropriate treatments without fear of legal liability.
Our Texas colleagues Flamm and Smith make several important legal points beyond the scope of our brief article for a medical audience. They wisely delineate the "flexibility" of the law, which allows for the diversity and availability of ethics committees. Arguing a more refined legal point, they further note that a physician's refusal "shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee." However, this does not mandate ethics committee review; instead, it creates an incentive for review by providing a legal safe harbor of immunity from civil or criminal prosecution to those physicians and institutions who engage in the ethics review process when there is a disagreement. This incentive is rather powerful, and we are unaware of any physician or institution in Texas that, having been granted such a legal safe harbor, has been willing to stop disputed life-sustaining treatment without following the due process mechanism provided for.
About Letters
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
REPLY
Advance Directives, Due Process, and Medical Futility
IN RESPONSE:
Author and Article Information
Top
Author & Article Info
From Baylor Health Care System, Dallas, TX 75204, and Southern Methodist University/Dedman School of Law, Dallas, TX 75275.
•Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
•Type with double-spacing
•Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. P. Sfikakis, N. Markomichelakis, E. Alpsoy, S. Assaad-Khalil, B. Bodaghi, A. Gul, S. Ohno, N. Pipitone, M. Schirmer, M. Stanford, et al. Anti-TNF therapy in the management of Behcet's disease--review and basis for recommendations Rheumatology, May 1, 2007; 46(5): 736 - 741. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Biester, C. Deuter, H. Michels, R. Haefner, J. Kuemmerle-Deschner, D. Doycheva, and M. Zierhut Adalimumab in the therapy of uveitis in childhood Br. J. Ophthalmol., March 1, 2007; 91(3): 319 - 324. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. K. Saurenmann, A. V. Levin, J. B. Rose, S. Parker, T. Rabinovitch, P. N. Tyrrell, B. M. Feldman, R. M. Laxer, R. Schneider, and E. D. Silverman Tumour necrosis factor {alpha} inhibitors in the treatment of childhood uveitis Rheumatology, August 1, 2006; 45(8): 982 - 989. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Sakellariou, C. Berberidis, and P. Vounotrypidis A case of Behcet's disease with scleromalacia perforans Rheumatology, February 1, 2005; 44(2): 258 - 260. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article
