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

13 Scopus citations

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

Keywords

  • end-of-life
  • ethics
  • law

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reason-Giving and Medical Futility: Contrasting Legal and Social Discourse in the United States With the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this