Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-94d59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T03:54:35.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Commentary: Bringing Clarity to the Futility Debate: Are the Cases Wrong? Lawrence J. Schneiderman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 1998

Lawrence J. Schneiderman
Affiliation:
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego

Abstract

Howard Brody expresses concern that citing the “two cases that put futility on the map,” namely Helga Wanglie and Baby K, may be providing ammunition to the opponents of the concept of medical futility. He in fact joins well-known opponents of the concept of medical futility in arguing that it is one thing for the physician to say whether a particular intervention will promote an identified goal, quite another to say whether a goal is worth pursuing. In the latter instance, physicians are laying themselves open “to the criticism of taking on basic value judgments that are more appropriately left to patients and their surrogates.” Brody states that in both the Wanglie and Baby K cases, the “basic value judgments” had to do with the worthiness of maintaining unconscious life via medical technology. He classifies this as “a question of professional integrity—but not a question of futility,” adding that “more than semantics hinges on this distinction.” The “more than semantics” factor is a pragmatic, even political one. Failure to make this distinction renders physicians “that much more suspect and less trustworthy in the public debate.”

Type
Brief Report
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)