help button home button
AJRCCM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LUCE, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LUCE, J. M.

Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 156, Number 6, December 1997, 1715-1718

Making Decisions About the Forgoing of Life-sustaining Therapy

JOHN M. LUCE

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California

The incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from critically ill patients has increased to the extent that these practices now precede well over half of all deaths in many intensive care units (ICUs). Although the forgoing of life-sustaining therapy is ethically acceptable and clinically desirable in certain instances, and although physicians do not have a responsibility to provide futile care even if a patient or surrogate insists on it, they must be cautious in exercising their influence, if not authority, over patients and surrogates in prompting the withholding and withdrawal of life support. Such caution is particularly indicated because managed care has made patients suspicious of health-care institutions and physicians who are rewarded for restricting access to care. Most patients and surrogates agree with reasonable physician recommendations to forgo life-sustaining therapy. When they do not agree, physicians should not limit care on the basis of their own personal notions of futility, but should instead rely on institutional or multiinstitutional futility policies. Such policies should be developed by health professionals, patients, community leaders, and, when appropriate, participants in managed-care organizations. They should specify which ICU interventions are beneficial, address potential conflicts of interest, and be available to persons who could use such information in selecting the source of their care.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
P Weisleder
Physicians as healthcare surrogate for terminally ill children
J. Med. Ethics, September 1, 2008; 34(9): e8 - e8.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
M. Angelotti, L. R. Barolet, and T. E. Quill
Dying and Decision Making
N. Engl. J. Med., August 5, 2004; 351(6): 611 - 612.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
R Lofmark and T Nilstun
Conditions and consequences of medical futility--from a literature review to a clinical model
J. Med. Ethics, April 1, 2002; 28(2): 115 - 119.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Law Med EthicsHome page
A. A. Bernard Lo
Avoiding Family Feuds: Responding to Surrogate Demands for Life-Sustaining Interventions
J. Law Med. Ethics, March 1, 1999; 27(1): 74 - 80.
[PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol.
Copyright © 1997 American Thoracic Society 		  ATS State of the Art 2009