 |
- Home
- Clinical Perspectives
- Business Perspectives
- Patient Care
- Learning
- Community
- Products
- Careers
- About Us
End-of-life care: Who decides when to pull the plug?
As politicians run for cover, the New Jersey courts, responsible for many of the nation's leading right-to-die cases, may again plow into this politically and emotionally charged territory. The matter currently before a state appeals court involves a 73-year-old man in a moribund, permanent vegetative state, who requires dialysis several times a week. The only thing prolonging biological life is the medical care he receives. The patient's treating doctors sought to discontinue dialysis but the family objected, so the doctors pursued a court order allowing them to discontinue treatment. At a hearing, the doctors testified that continued treatment was both futile and contrary to accepted standards of care. The family produced a physician-expert who testified that, essentially, the standard of care required physicians to provide any care requested by the family. The trial court ruled for the family, concluding because it desired all possible avenues of treatment to be pursued, there were no circumstances that would justify withholding even treatments deemed inappropriate. To the contrary, the notion that a patient or family member can require any type of care, regardless of its propriety, has long been disavowed by the American Medical Association. The AMA's Code of Medical Ethics has recognized this principle since at least 1994, when it published an opinion that states: "Physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefitting their patients. Patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them." In the same opinion, however, the AMA also found that "Denial of treatment should be justified by reliance on openly stated ethical principles and acceptable standards of care . . . not on the concept of 'futility,' which cannot be meaningfully defined."Given the AMA's position, it appears impossible to base end-of-life decisions on the concept of futility. However, physicians must be able to exercise their judgment, in consultation with medical experts or hospital committees, to determine when care is appropriate and when respect for life warrants cessation of treatment. Decisions of this magnitude can be resolved if they are left to physicians and are based upon recognized standards of care, and due consideration is given to the wishes of the patient or his representatives. We can also be assured that the family can resolve any disagreements regarding what constitutes appropriate standards of care by choosing physicians who are willing to honor their wishes. Only when there is uniformity of opinion that the treatment sought deviates from accepted standards of practice will the wishes of the family remain unfulfilled. When all physicians agree, neither the courts, government bureaucrats, nor insurance companies should reverse those decisions. Modern Medicine NETWORK
Medical Economics Consultant Steven I. Kern, JD, is a health law attorney with Kern Augustine Conroy & Schoppmann in Bridgewater, New Jersey;
Lake Success, New York; and Philadelphia. He can be reached at kern@drlaw.com
|  Stay Connected to Medical Economics • Current Issue • Issue Archive • Subscribe to Enewsletter • Subscribe to Print Edition • Subscribe to Digital Edition • Medical Economics Radio • Follow Us on Twitter
 Practice Tools Coding Counselor Simple and accurate ICD-9 code search. Start Here  Patient Education Print customized patient education handouts. Start Here  Surgical Video Center On-demand surgery demos and presentations. Start Here     Featured Jobs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Points
Posted Oct 08 2009 06:25PM
