There was a remarkable outpouring of publications related to the concept of medical futility between 1988 and 1995, and there has been a substantial drop-off since then. A wide variety of definitions of the concept were offered from many corners of the medical profession, from medical social sciences, as well as from judges in several state and federal courts. Attention was drawn to the conflicts over when it is appropriate to declare further treatment futile, who has the authority to make (...) such determinations, and what evidence is required. (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)

What is the status of empirical contributions to bioethics, especially to clinical bioethics? Where is the empirical approach discussed in bioethics related to the ongoing debate about principlism versus casuistry? Can we consider an integrative model of research in medical ethics and which empirical methodology could then be valuable, the quantitative or the qualitative? These issues will be addressed in the first, theoretical part of the paper. The concept of the “embedded researcher” presented in this article was stimulated by the (...) two questions, (1) how can we safeguard that our research will yield valid and meaningful results to practice? and (2), how can we convince clinical colleagues that medical ethics offers relevant contributions to the analysis and solution of problems? One tentative answer has been our effort to elaborate a coherent methodological research approach in the field of end-of-life issues integrating qualitative and quantitative as well as casuistic methodologies. This development is characterized in the second part describing the ECOPE Study (short title)“Ethical Conditions Of Passive Euthanasia.” The achievements and limitations of the suggested approach of the “embedded researcher” are discussed referring to 3 examples of our joint studies about ethical issues concerning(1) critical decision-making in neonatology(2) limitation of treatment in intensive care(3) problems with doctor-patient conversation at the end of life in oncologyConclusions from our studies are put to discussion in the final part of the paper about how to further develop research in the field of end-of-life care and, maybe,clinical bioethics as a whole. (shrink)