The modern debate on whether—and why—physicians and hospitals can refuse patient or family demands for treatment on grounds of “futility” will be reaching its 20th anniversary this year (Blackhall, 1987). The early debate focused on the use of CPR, for good historical and clinical reasons, and CPR probably remains the primary target of hospital policy. But the reach of the arguments over futility extends well beyond this context, most vividly illustrated by the case of Helga Wanglie and the many commentaries (...) it spawned (Brody, 1998; Schneiderman, 1998; Trotter, 1999). There seems no obvious reason in principle that questions about futility cannot be raised about virtually any form of treatment that patients or families might demand, including such things as chemotherapy for cancer (Tomlinson, 2001). Still, we might fairly ask what new dimensions and complexities the futility question acquires when it moves onto decisions about treatments other than CPR. This is what I would like to do in this essay. I will use dialysis as the case in point, although I hope to extract lessons from the dialysis example that will be pertinent to other forms of life-sustaining treatment, like ventilators. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

Debate over the relationship of law and bioethics is growing - what the relationship has been and what it should be in the future. While George Annas has praised law and rights-talk for creating modern bioethics, Carl Schneider has instead blamed law for hijacking bioethics and stunting moral reflection. Indeed, as modern bioethics approaches the 40-year mark, historians of bioethics are presenting divergent accounts. In one account, typified by Albert Jonsen, bioethics largely grew out of philosophy and theology, not law. (...) In another account, law has deeply shaped bioethics from the start, forging its central commitment to the rights of patients and research subjects and the fields imposition of broad fiduciary responsibilities on health care professionals and researchers.In addition to debating how to properly describe laws historical relationship to bioethics, commentators have argued over whether laws influence in bioethics is now good or bad. (shrink)

Die demografische Entwicklung und der medizinische Fortschritt werden die Problematik der Ressourcenknappheit im Gesundheitswesen in Zukunft weiter verschärfen. Auch Deutschland steht eine Prioritätensetzung im Gesundheitswesen bevor. Diese sollte in möglichst transparenter Weise nach klaren Kriterien erfolgen. Ein nur selten in diesem Kontext besprochenes Kriterium der Verteilung von Mitteln in der Gesundheitsversorgung ist die marginale Wirksamkeit medizinischer Leistungen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird dieses Kriterium vorgestellt und auf seine Fairness hin untersucht. Nach der kritischen Diskussion einiger Argumente gegen den offenen Einsatz von (...) Rationierungskriterien und einer Definition von marginaler Wirksamkeit in zwei unterschiedlichen Dimensionen werden verschiedene Vorzüge und eventuelle Nachteile des Kriteriums beleuchtet. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie demografische Entwicklung und der medizinische Fortschritt werden die Problematik der Ressourcenknappheit im Gesundheitswesen in Zukunft weiter verschärfen. Auch Deutschland steht eine Prioritätensetzung im Gesundheitswesen bevor. Diese sollte in möglichst transparenter Weise nach klaren Kriterien erfolgen. Ein nur selten in diesem Kontext besprochenes Kriterium der Verteilung von Mitteln in der Gesundheitsversorgung ist die marginale Wirksamkeit medizinischer Leistungen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird dieses Kriterium vorgestellt und auf seine Fairness hin untersucht. Nach der kritischen Diskussion einiger Argumente gegen den offenen Einsatz von (...) Rationierungskriterien und einer Definition von marginaler Wirksamkeit in zwei unterschiedlichen Dimensionen werden verschiedene Vorzüge und eventuelle Nachteile des Kriteriums beleuchtet. (shrink)