Resolving family-clinician disputes in the context of contested definitions of futility

Gabriel Bosslet, Bernard Lo, Douglas B. White

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The word futile has been a touchstone in debates regarding resolution of disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments since the 1980s. Here, we respond to several criticisms of the Multiorganization Policy Statement, “An Official ATS/ AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units” (Bosslet et al. 2015). This response highlights the need for a strict definition of the word futile in order to avoid undue treatment differences when end-of-life interventions are contested. We also reply to several criticisms of this policy statement that are formulated upon fundamental misunderstandings of the statement and its assertions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)314-318
Number of pages5
JournalPerspectives in Biology and Medicine
Volume60
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Medical Futility
Dissent and Disputes
Intensive Care Units
Clinicians
Dispute
Criticism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

Resolving family-clinician disputes in the context of contested definitions of futility. / Bosslet, Gabriel; Lo, Bernard; White, Douglas B.

In: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 60, No. 3, 01.06.2018, p. 314-318.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7eb2086446fd4296858a9fe20c59d4f2,
title = "Resolving family-clinician disputes in the context of contested definitions of futility",
abstract = "The word futile has been a touchstone in debates regarding resolution of disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments since the 1980s. Here, we respond to several criticisms of the Multiorganization Policy Statement, “An Official ATS/ AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units” (Bosslet et al. 2015). This response highlights the need for a strict definition of the word futile in order to avoid undue treatment differences when end-of-life interventions are contested. We also reply to several criticisms of this policy statement that are formulated upon fundamental misunderstandings of the statement and its assertions.",
author = "Gabriel Bosslet and Bernard Lo and White, {Douglas B.}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1353/pbm.2018.0002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "314--318",
journal = "Perspectives in Biology and Medicine",
issn = "0031-5982",
publisher = "Johns Hopkins University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resolving family-clinician disputes in the context of contested definitions of futility

AU - Bosslet, Gabriel

AU - Lo, Bernard

AU - White, Douglas B.

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - The word futile has been a touchstone in debates regarding resolution of disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments since the 1980s. Here, we respond to several criticisms of the Multiorganization Policy Statement, “An Official ATS/ AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units” (Bosslet et al. 2015). This response highlights the need for a strict definition of the word futile in order to avoid undue treatment differences when end-of-life interventions are contested. We also reply to several criticisms of this policy statement that are formulated upon fundamental misunderstandings of the statement and its assertions.

AB - The word futile has been a touchstone in debates regarding resolution of disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments since the 1980s. Here, we respond to several criticisms of the Multiorganization Policy Statement, “An Official ATS/ AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units” (Bosslet et al. 2015). This response highlights the need for a strict definition of the word futile in order to avoid undue treatment differences when end-of-life interventions are contested. We also reply to several criticisms of this policy statement that are formulated upon fundamental misunderstandings of the statement and its assertions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041053864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041053864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1353/pbm.2018.0002

DO - 10.1353/pbm.2018.0002

M3 - Article

C2 - 29375058

AN - SCOPUS:85041053864

VL - 60

SP - 314

EP - 318

JO - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

JF - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

SN - 0031-5982

IS - 3

ER -