An anencephalic infant, who came to be known as Baby K, was born at Fairfax Hospial in Falls Church, Virginia, on October 13, 1992. From, the moment of birth and repeatedly thereafter, the baby's mother insisted that aggressive measures be pursued, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and ventilator support, to keep the baby alive as long as possible. The physicians complied. However, following the baby's second admission for respiratory failure, the hospital sought declaratory relief from the court permitting it to forgo emergency (...) life support on the grounds that “a requirement to provide respiratory assistance would exceed the prevailing standard of medical care,” and that “because any treatment of their condition is futile, the prevailing standard of medical care for infants with anencephaly is to provide warmth, nutrition, and hydration.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the baby's mother, citing the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act , which contained no “standard of care” exception to the requirement to provide “treatment necessary to prevent the material deterioration of the individual's condition.” An appeal to the United States Supreme Court was rejected. The baby died some two and one-half years later of cardiac arrest during her sixth visit to the emergency department of Fairfax Hospital for respiratory failure. (shrink)

In situations where experience shows that a particular intervention will not benefit a patient, common sense seems to suggest that the intervention should not be used. Yet it is precisely in these situations that a peculiar ethic begins to operate, an ethic that Eddy calls “the criterion of potential benefit.” According to this ethic, “a treatment is appropriate if it might have some benefit.” Thus, the various maxims learned in medical school instruct physicians that “‘an error of commission is to (...) be preferred to an error of omission,’ or ‘when in doubt, cut it out’ or ‘if but one patient is helped, then the treatment is worthwhile.’”. (shrink)

D.T. a 35-year-old woman, was found to have breast cancer. At the time of mastectomy axillary lymph nodes were positive and the cancer was classified as adenocarcinoma, grade 4. The patient underwent conventional chemotherapy. When it became apparent the disease was metastatic, the patient's oncologist contacted a well-known cancer center regarding the possibility of treating the patient with high dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation. The patient's health insurance provider informed the patient, however, that the treatment—estimated to cost in (...) the range of $150,000–200,000—was “considered experimental or research in nature” and therefore was not included in coverage. D.T. did not pursue this further. Approximately 2 years later, cancer was detected in the patient's spine. This time she applied to another well-known cancer center for HDC/ABMT. The cancer center agreed to accept her on the condition of proof of ability to pay for the treatment. Again her insurer refused coverage on the same grounds as before. D.T. found another source for the money, underwent treatment, then sued the insurance carrier. She sought a declaratory judgment that the treatment was covered under the insurance policy. The court ruled in favor of D.T. finding the contract phrase “considered experimental” ambiguous. (shrink)

Most bioethicists and professional medical societies condemn the practice of ?slow codes.? The American College of Physicians ethics manual states, ?Because it is deceptive, physicians or nurses should not perform half-hearted resuscitation efforts (?slow codes?).? A leading textbook calls slow codes ?dishonest, crass dissimulation, and unethical.? A medical sociologist describes them as ?deplorable, dishonest and inconsistent with established ethical principles.? Nevertheless, we believe that slow codes may be appropriate and ethically defensible in situations in which cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is likely (...) to be ineffective, the family decision makers understand and accept that death is inevitable, and those family members cannot bring themselves to consent or even assent to a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order. In such cases, we argue, physicians may best serve both the patient and the family by having a carefully ambiguous discussion about end-of-life options and then providing resuscitation efforts that are less vigorous or prolonged than usual. (shrink)

Debates about medical futility first emerged in the scholarly literature during the 1990s after empirical studies showed the widespread use of medical interventions offering no reasonable chance of...

The principle of autonomy is widely recognized to be of utmost importance in bioethics; however, we argue that this principle is often misapplied when one fails to distinguish two different contexts in medicine. When a particular patient is offered treatment options, she has the ultimate say in whether to proceed with any of those treatments. However, when deciding whether a particular intervention should be regarded as a form of medical treatment in the first place, it is the medical community who (...) has the ultimate say. Some argue that particular interventions should be allowed by virtue of the fact that they are autonomously requested. But making such an argument fails to distinguish between these two contexts and misapplies the principle of autonomy, ultimately having the potential to instigate problematic changes in the practice of medicine. (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)

Decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation may be based on medical prognosis, quality of life and patients' choices. Low survival rates indicate its overuse. Although the concept of medical futility has limitations, several strong predictors of non-survival have been identified and prognostic indices developed. Early results indicate that consideration of resuscitation in the elderly should be very selective, and support "opt-in" policies. In this minority of patients, quality of life is the principal issue. This is subjective and best assessed by the individual (...) in question. Patients' attitudes cannot be predicted reliably and surrogate decision-making is inadequate. Lay knowledge is poor. However, patients can use prognostic information to make rational choices. The majority welcome discussion of resuscitation and prefer this to be initiated by their doctors; many wish to decide for themselves. There is little evidence that this causes distress. The views of such patients, if competent, should be sought actively. (shrink)