Futility and the ethics of resuscitation

Tom Tomlinson, Howard Brody

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

201 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recent recommendations that physicians be allowed to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation, without patient consent, from patients for whom it would be futile have drawn objections that such unilateral judgments would undermine respect for patient autonomy. These objections assume that since futility determinations involve value judgments, patient input is always required. However, certain sorts of value judgments must be made unilaterally by physicians as part of reasonable medical practice. Moreover, the mixed messages inherent in requesting patient consent to withhold futile therapy serve to undermine rather than to enhance autonomous choice. Real patient interests can better be served by a broad public dialogue around judgments of medical reasonableness and medical futility, rather than concern for the form but not the substance of patient autonomy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1276-1280
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume264
Issue number10
StatePublished - Sep 12 1990
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Medical Futility
Resuscitation
Ethics
Physicians
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Tomlinson, T., & Brody, H. (1990). Futility and the ethics of resuscitation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264(10), 1276-1280.

Futility and the ethics of resuscitation. / Tomlinson, Tom; Brody, Howard.

In: Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 264, No. 10, 12.09.1990, p. 1276-1280.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tomlinson, T & Brody, H 1990, 'Futility and the ethics of resuscitation', Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 264, no. 10, pp. 1276-1280.
Tomlinson T, Brody H. Futility and the ethics of resuscitation. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990 Sep 12;264(10):1276-1280.
Tomlinson, Tom ; Brody, Howard. / Futility and the ethics of resuscitation. In: Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990 ; Vol. 264, No. 10. pp. 1276-1280.
@article{560a674abfd64872ac6479af1c43d060,
title = "Futility and the ethics of resuscitation",
abstract = "Recent recommendations that physicians be allowed to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation, without patient consent, from patients for whom it would be futile have drawn objections that such unilateral judgments would undermine respect for patient autonomy. These objections assume that since futility determinations involve value judgments, patient input is always required. However, certain sorts of value judgments must be made unilaterally by physicians as part of reasonable medical practice. Moreover, the mixed messages inherent in requesting patient consent to withhold futile therapy serve to undermine rather than to enhance autonomous choice. Real patient interests can better be served by a broad public dialogue around judgments of medical reasonableness and medical futility, rather than concern for the form but not the substance of patient autonomy.",
author = "Tom Tomlinson and Howard Brody",
year = "1990",
month = "9",
day = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "264",
pages = "1276--1280",
journal = "JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association",
issn = "0002-9955",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Futility and the ethics of resuscitation

AU - Tomlinson, Tom

AU - Brody, Howard

PY - 1990/9/12

Y1 - 1990/9/12

N2 - Recent recommendations that physicians be allowed to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation, without patient consent, from patients for whom it would be futile have drawn objections that such unilateral judgments would undermine respect for patient autonomy. These objections assume that since futility determinations involve value judgments, patient input is always required. However, certain sorts of value judgments must be made unilaterally by physicians as part of reasonable medical practice. Moreover, the mixed messages inherent in requesting patient consent to withhold futile therapy serve to undermine rather than to enhance autonomous choice. Real patient interests can better be served by a broad public dialogue around judgments of medical reasonableness and medical futility, rather than concern for the form but not the substance of patient autonomy.

AB - Recent recommendations that physicians be allowed to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation, without patient consent, from patients for whom it would be futile have drawn objections that such unilateral judgments would undermine respect for patient autonomy. These objections assume that since futility determinations involve value judgments, patient input is always required. However, certain sorts of value judgments must be made unilaterally by physicians as part of reasonable medical practice. Moreover, the mixed messages inherent in requesting patient consent to withhold futile therapy serve to undermine rather than to enhance autonomous choice. Real patient interests can better be served by a broad public dialogue around judgments of medical reasonableness and medical futility, rather than concern for the form but not the substance of patient autonomy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025125188&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025125188&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2388379

AN - SCOPUS:0025125188

VL - 264

SP - 1276

EP - 1280

JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

SN - 0002-9955

IS - 10

ER -