Reason-Giving and Medical Futility: Contrasting Legal and Social Discourse in the United States With the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada

Gabriel Bosslet, Mary Baker, Thaddeus M. Pope

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments are stressful for all parties involved. These disagreements are appropriately almost always resolved with intensive communication and negotiation. Those rare cases that are not require a resolution process that ensures fairness and due process. We describe three recent cases from different countries (the United States, United Kingdom, and Ontario, Canada) to qualitatively contrast the legal responses to intractable, policy-level disputes regarding end-of-life care in each of these countries. In so doing, we define the continuum of clinical and social utility among different types of dispute resolution processes and emphasize the importance of public reason-giving in the societal discussion regarding policy-level solutions to end-of-life treatment disputes. We argue that precedential, publicly available, written rulings for these decisions most effectively help to move the social debate forward in a way that is beneficial to clinicians, patients, and citizens. This analysis highlights the lack of such rulings within the United States.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)714-721
Number of pages8
JournalChest
Volume150
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Medical Futility
Dissent and Disputes
Ontario
Canada
Civil Rights
Terminal Care
Negotiating
Communication
United Kingdom
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • end-of-life
  • ethics
  • law

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Reason-Giving and Medical Futility : Contrasting Legal and Social Discourse in the United States With the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada. / Bosslet, Gabriel; Baker, Mary; Pope, Thaddeus M.

In: Chest, Vol. 150, No. 3, 01.09.2016, p. 714-721.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{bdb2a33510514d2db7baf472e6f79687,
title = "Reason-Giving and Medical Futility: Contrasting Legal and Social Discourse in the United States With the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada",
abstract = "Disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments are stressful for all parties involved. These disagreements are appropriately almost always resolved with intensive communication and negotiation. Those rare cases that are not require a resolution process that ensures fairness and due process. We describe three recent cases from different countries (the United States, United Kingdom, and Ontario, Canada) to qualitatively contrast the legal responses to intractable, policy-level disputes regarding end-of-life care in each of these countries. In so doing, we define the continuum of clinical and social utility among different types of dispute resolution processes and emphasize the importance of public reason-giving in the societal discussion regarding policy-level solutions to end-of-life treatment disputes. We argue that precedential, publicly available, written rulings for these decisions most effectively help to move the social debate forward in a way that is beneficial to clinicians, patients, and citizens. This analysis highlights the lack of such rulings within the United States.",
keywords = "end-of-life, ethics, law",
author = "Gabriel Bosslet and Mary Baker and Pope, {Thaddeus M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.chest.2016.05.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "150",
pages = "714--721",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "American College of Chest Physicians",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reason-Giving and Medical Futility

T2 - Contrasting Legal and Social Discourse in the United States With the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada

AU - Bosslet, Gabriel

AU - Baker, Mary

AU - Pope, Thaddeus M.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments are stressful for all parties involved. These disagreements are appropriately almost always resolved with intensive communication and negotiation. Those rare cases that are not require a resolution process that ensures fairness and due process. We describe three recent cases from different countries (the United States, United Kingdom, and Ontario, Canada) to qualitatively contrast the legal responses to intractable, policy-level disputes regarding end-of-life care in each of these countries. In so doing, we define the continuum of clinical and social utility among different types of dispute resolution processes and emphasize the importance of public reason-giving in the societal discussion regarding policy-level solutions to end-of-life treatment disputes. We argue that precedential, publicly available, written rulings for these decisions most effectively help to move the social debate forward in a way that is beneficial to clinicians, patients, and citizens. This analysis highlights the lack of such rulings within the United States.

AB - Disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments are stressful for all parties involved. These disagreements are appropriately almost always resolved with intensive communication and negotiation. Those rare cases that are not require a resolution process that ensures fairness and due process. We describe three recent cases from different countries (the United States, United Kingdom, and Ontario, Canada) to qualitatively contrast the legal responses to intractable, policy-level disputes regarding end-of-life care in each of these countries. In so doing, we define the continuum of clinical and social utility among different types of dispute resolution processes and emphasize the importance of public reason-giving in the societal discussion regarding policy-level solutions to end-of-life treatment disputes. We argue that precedential, publicly available, written rulings for these decisions most effectively help to move the social debate forward in a way that is beneficial to clinicians, patients, and citizens. This analysis highlights the lack of such rulings within the United States.

KW - end-of-life

KW - ethics

KW - law

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995705008&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995705008&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.chest.2016.05.026

DO - 10.1016/j.chest.2016.05.026

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27298070

AN - SCOPUS:84995705008

VL - 150

SP - 714

EP - 721

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 3

ER -