What is futile treatment? Does a patient's desire for treatment -- even what's medically futile -- necessitate that a physician agree to provide that treatment? Does it matter if the patient can pay or not?
I think if the patients wants the treatment, even if the outcome is inevitable, they deserve the right to the treatment. If someone wants to continue to fight and prolong their life how can anyone tell them otherwise. Say that person wants to make till a certain event that is important to them. On that note, i believe if the physician feels uncomfortable on performing any treatments on someone who is futile. I dont believe you can make any doctor or physician perform a procedure they dont want to do.
I agree with you Kevin. Anyone who want to continue to survive even if it is only on a feeding tube or any form of artificial life support it is their choice. How can you tell a person you have no right to continue to live and just because you are going to die when we take you off this does not mean they do not have the right to hope for a miracle. Any doctor who is unwilling to preform the necessary steps to keep a person alive needs to step aside and allow the person or the family of the person to request a new doctor who will help them.
I can see this situation both ways like Kevin did. If a person wants to live to a certain point to make sure that they see or do something that they want to, who are we to tell them that they can't. We are not the ones dying and at the end of the day we can go on with our lives. However, like he said if a MD doesnt feel comfortable performing something they shouldnt be made to do so. We have the ability to say no to something that we don't feel is right.
I would define futile treatment as any medical action that is wasted on a particular patient when it could have been used in a far more productive way. For example, providing excess treatment to a terminal patient who is beyond saving is futile. A physician should not be obligated to provide a treatment when he or she is confident that it will not have a beneficial effect, especially if said physician believes that the treatment could have a negative side effect. In this situation it is the physician who has gone through years of schooling to enter his or her position, and it would be a waste of that education if the physician did not have the final say on what treatment would be the best for the patient. If the treatment is the difference between life and death it should not matter if the patient could pay or not because you cannot put a price tag on a human life. Even if the treatment is not meant to save a life, but drastically improve it, cost should not be an issue. However, this does not apply to all scenarios and should be limited to those who are truly in need.
I think futile treatment is medicine that will not produce a result. The physician does not have to agree to treat a patient with medicine if is not going to produce a result because it is against their beliefs or they just do not want to do it. It is pointless to have a physician do something when they do not feel comfortable doing it because you are putting the patient in the hands of a doctor who does not want to help in that way, it is unjust. I do not think it will matter to the doctor but the hospital itself it might have an effect.
I like a lot that i read from this and how you described futile treatment was right on point. I do agree sometimes that it can be unjust to give a patient medicine that won't produce a result and I wonder how often physicians struggle on that line of suggesting that something won't work. I also agree somewhat about the doctors response but I have some hope that not all doctors are money hungry and unfeeling people described in your sentence.
Futile treatment is a treatment plan that is basically unnecessary and will not produce positive results for the patient. I believe if the patient is aware that the treatment is futile and understand the consequences of said treatment, then they can chose it as a treatment option. If I were a physician, I would state all treatment options clearly to the patient and their family and if they are persistent in their desire for a futile treatment, I can only respect their wishes and do what they want in the remaining time.
I agree that you have to clearly explain the treatment and what it will do for patient and for others. As long as they realize it is not going be something to make it all better for them. futile treatment is treatment that is not going to be effective for the patient. I can see why people say this type of treatment should not be given but I also feel that ultimately it is up to the patient/loved ones to make the choice. If they understand the treatment but are still persistent like she said, I would say they should give them treatment.
I think that futile treatment, or treatment for no reason, should be the decision of the physician. Most of the times i disagree with it because it is doing nothing for the patient and is wasting time and money that could go to others who are able to be helped. Now in some situations I agree with it. For example, if a mother wants to stay alive to see her daughters wedding. I think it is okay, in these special circumstances, to allow for physicians to prolong life.
i agree with Erik that in the special circumstance i think it can be right, but if it because a family member doesn't want to let go i think it is wrong. Not only wrong but a waste of money and the physicians time that they could be using on someone else. I understand that you love the person but prolonging their pain is wrong.
I agree with Erik, as well. I think that in special circumstances that prolonging life should be allowed. In other circumstances if treatment is not helping a patient I think that it shouldn't be offered. I don't think it is right for a patient to waste their time or money on things that will not end up working.
I also agree that is certain situations, it can be right. I agree with Joe as well in the fact that holding on just because a family member doesn't want to is wrong. Making someone miserable just for your satisfaction is greedy and morally wrong.
I think the patient should have the ability to stop treatment when he or she sees fit to do so. If the patient is not harming anyone, they should be able to continue treatment if they desire to do so. We aren't in the patients situation and we don't know what they are going through. As others have stated special circumstances should be allowed for some patients, but what exactly is a special circumstance? A patients circumstance could be special to them, but others would deem it ordinary and unimportant. Who has the right to decide which is worthy and which is not?
I also agree that in special circumstances it can be right, but otherwise i feel like it is wrong. I understand that i am not in these patients situations but if i was on my death bed receiving treatment to prolong my life i would feel selfish if there was someone who really needed treatment to remain alive, and had a chance to survive and especially if i was wasting a physicians time and my families money.
I liked the two situations that Erik explained in his reponse. If a patient wants to stay alive to be part of a time in his/her life is definitly a reason to do everything to keep this person alive. However, sometimes people are afraid to let go and they want their loved one to stay alive as long as possible. We all have a time to go, and we shouldn't be accountable for stopping that.
Futile treatment is treatment that is used to simply keep the patient alive and is not helping them get better. It prolongs their life but doesn't cure them. I found great difficulty in answering the question of whether or not a patient should be provided with futile treatment. On one hand the patient may be able to pay but doesn't necessarily deserve to be alive any longer while someone who is deserving may not have any money to keep treatment going. What I do believe is that money shouldn't be wasted and if theses patients do go on this treatment without having the money to pay for it who will be responsible for paying for it?
I think that if a patient requests a procedure that will not help their condition in anyway, it is the doctor's responsibility to try and educate that person on the futility of the treatment. If the person still persists, I think they should only receive the treatment if they can afford it. There is no need to waste medical resources just because a person can't cope with the fact that their life is coming to an end.
I love that idea of the MD educated the patient on the futility of the treatment. The patient could not be aware of the effects of the treatment and just think that someone wants them to die.
I agree with what various others have stated in that if treatment is asked for, and if their is not someone else who desperately needs it more, and it can be paid for, let the patient have it. The physicians is of course, obligated to tell the patient if it is futile, but if the patient persists, and meets the stated requirements above, than go ahead with it. if it is as simple as medication, than of course they should be given it even if it is futile, so as to at least possibly prolong suffering as long as possible. which I believe most people deserve. but if treatment is futile, let them seek other alternative methods. ANY alternative method. or at least inform them of the alternatives to futile treatment.
I would define futile treatment as something that is given to patient that is not expected to make the situation any better than it is. This is a tough situation that I have been going back and forth on. If i were on my death bed and wanted a treatment that I thought was going to help me I would hope that everyone and anyone would be willing to give me things that could possibly help me. EVen if they thought it wasn't going to work, It would still be worth a shot. However, If i were a doctor and knew that there was not hope for this patient, I can't help but think that this could be used in a better situation. I have the ability to make the decision. I do have a very caring heart and would probably put myself in the shoes of my patient and end up giving them the treamtent anyways. The whole issue about being able to pay is very difficult as well. My sister was in the hopspital the first 9 months of her life, we were very lucky that we had help to pay for it but it was not easy. I couldn't imagine not being able to have a chance because you couldn't pay.
Futile treatment is treatment given to a patient to help sustain life longer, but not to help them reach a cure. I believe that a person has the right to ask for futile treatment because they want to live as long as possible. They should not be denied the right to fight for their life by anybody not even doctors. However, if a patient doesn't have the resources to pay for treatment then they should not be allowed futile treatment.
I liked what one person stated earlier about Futile treatment. What I think of when futile treatment, I think of it as treatment that won't result in anything helpful and only prolong life. I want to agree with the patient if they want that futile treatment to prolong, but its also the physician's job to say something if it won't help and is unnecessary especially if the patient cannot pay it. Sometimes I wonder how often physicians have to come to blows when asking him or herself to speak out on the futile treatment.
Futile treatment is treatment that won't necessarily result in a positive outcome. It's almost useless. However, I don't think that a patient could be denied treatment that would at least if anything, make their spirits higher. Its hard though because its almost a "waste of money". In this situation, the physician needs to clearly state to the patient what the treatment will and will not do. If the treatment brings no hope of prolonging life, or curing the ailment, then that needs to be openly addressed.
I think if the patients wants the treatment, even if the outcome is inevitable, they deserve the right to the treatment. If someone wants to continue to fight and prolong their life how can anyone tell them otherwise. Say that person wants to make till a certain event that is important to them. On that note, i believe if the physician feels uncomfortable on performing any treatments on someone who is futile. I dont believe you can make any doctor or physician perform a procedure they dont want to do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Kevin. Anyone who want to continue to survive even if it is only on a feeding tube or any form of artificial life support it is their choice. How can you tell a person you have no right to continue to live and just because you are going to die when we take you off this does not mean they do not have the right to hope for a miracle. Any doctor who is unwilling to preform the necessary steps to keep a person alive needs to step aside and allow the person or the family of the person to request a new doctor who will help them.
DeleteI can see this situation both ways like Kevin did. If a person wants to live to a certain point to make sure that they see or do something that they want to, who are we to tell them that they can't. We are not the ones dying and at the end of the day we can go on with our lives. However, like he said if a MD doesnt feel comfortable performing something they shouldnt be made to do so. We have the ability to say no to something that we don't feel is right.
DeleteI would define futile treatment as any medical action that is wasted on a particular patient when it could have been used in a far more productive way. For example, providing excess treatment to a terminal patient who is beyond saving is futile. A physician should not be obligated to provide a treatment when he or she is confident that it will not have a beneficial effect, especially if said physician believes that the treatment could have a negative side effect. In this situation it is the physician who has gone through years of schooling to enter his or her position, and it would be a waste of that education if the physician did not have the final say on what treatment would be the best for the patient. If the treatment is the difference between life and death it should not matter if the patient could pay or not because you cannot put a price tag on a human life. Even if the treatment is not meant to save a life, but drastically improve it, cost should not be an issue. However, this does not apply to all scenarios and should be limited to those who are truly in need.
ReplyDeleteI think futile treatment is medicine that will not produce a result. The physician does not have to agree to treat a patient with medicine if is not going to produce a result because it is against their beliefs or they just do not want to do it. It is pointless to have a physician do something when they do not feel comfortable doing it because you are putting the patient in the hands of a doctor who does not want to help in that way, it is unjust. I do not think it will matter to the doctor but the hospital itself it might have an effect.
ReplyDeleteI like a lot that i read from this and how you described futile treatment was right on point. I do agree sometimes that it can be unjust to give a patient medicine that won't produce a result and I wonder how often physicians struggle on that line of suggesting that something won't work. I also agree somewhat about the doctors response but I have some hope that not all doctors are money hungry and unfeeling people described in your sentence.
DeleteFutile treatment is a treatment plan that is basically unnecessary and will not produce positive results for the patient. I believe if the patient is aware that the treatment is futile and understand the consequences of said treatment, then they can chose it as a treatment option. If I were a physician, I would state all treatment options clearly to the patient and their family and if they are persistent in their desire for a futile treatment, I can only respect their wishes and do what they want in the remaining time.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you have to clearly explain the treatment and what it will do for patient and for others. As long as they realize it is not going be something to make it all better for them. futile treatment is treatment that is not going to be effective for the patient. I can see why people say this type of treatment should not be given but I also feel that ultimately it is up to the patient/loved ones to make the choice. If they understand the treatment but are still persistent like she said, I would say they should give them treatment.
DeleteI think that futile treatment, or treatment for no reason, should be the decision of the physician. Most of the times i disagree with it because it is doing nothing for the patient and is wasting time and money that could go to others who are able to be helped. Now in some situations I agree with it. For example, if a mother wants to stay alive to see her daughters wedding. I think it is okay, in these special circumstances, to allow for physicians to prolong life.
ReplyDeletei agree with Erik that in the special circumstance i think it can be right, but if it because a family member doesn't want to let go i think it is wrong. Not only wrong but a waste of money and the physicians time that they could be using on someone else. I understand that you love the person but prolonging their pain is wrong.
DeleteI agree with Erik, as well. I think that in special circumstances that prolonging life should be allowed. In other circumstances if treatment is not helping a patient I think that it shouldn't be offered. I don't think it is right for a patient to waste their time or money on things that will not end up working.
DeleteI also agree that is certain situations, it can be right. I agree with Joe as well in the fact that holding on just because a family member doesn't want to is wrong. Making someone miserable just for your satisfaction is greedy and morally wrong.
DeleteI think the patient should have the ability to stop treatment when he or she sees fit to do so. If the patient is not harming anyone, they should be able to continue treatment if they desire to do so. We aren't in the patients situation and we don't know what they are going through. As others have stated special circumstances should be allowed for some patients, but what exactly is a special circumstance? A patients circumstance could be special to them, but others would deem it ordinary and unimportant. Who has the right to decide which is worthy and which is not?
DeleteI also agree that in special circumstances it can be right, but otherwise i feel like it is wrong. I understand that i am not in these patients situations but if i was on my death bed receiving treatment to prolong my life i would feel selfish if there was someone who really needed treatment to remain alive, and had a chance to survive and especially if i was wasting a physicians time and my families money.
DeleteI liked the two situations that Erik explained in his reponse. If a patient wants to stay alive to be part of a time in his/her life is definitly a reason to do everything to keep this person alive. However, sometimes people are afraid to let go and they want their loved one to stay alive as long as possible. We all have a time to go, and we shouldn't be accountable for stopping that.
DeleteFutile treatment is treatment that is used to simply keep the patient alive and is not helping them get better. It prolongs their life but doesn't cure them. I found great difficulty in answering the question of whether or not a patient should be provided with futile treatment. On one hand the patient may be able to pay but doesn't necessarily deserve to be alive any longer while someone who is deserving may not have any money to keep treatment going. What I do believe is that money shouldn't be wasted and if theses patients do go on this treatment without having the money to pay for it who will be responsible for paying for it?
ReplyDeleteI think that if a patient requests a procedure that will not help their condition in anyway, it is the doctor's responsibility to try and educate that person on the futility of the treatment. If the person still persists, I think they should only receive the treatment if they can afford it. There is no need to waste medical resources just because a person can't cope with the fact that their life is coming to an end.
ReplyDeleteI love that idea of the MD educated the patient on the futility of the treatment. The patient could not be aware of the effects of the treatment and just think that someone wants them to die.
DeleteI agree with Cory that it is the Doctor's responsibility to educate the patient on the futility of the treatment.
DeleteI agree with what various others have stated in that if treatment is asked for, and if their is not someone else who desperately needs it more, and it can be paid for, let the patient have it.
ReplyDeleteThe physicians is of course, obligated to tell the patient if it is futile, but if the patient persists, and meets the stated requirements above, than go ahead with it.
if it is as simple as medication, than of course they should be given it even if it is futile, so as to at least possibly prolong suffering as long as possible.
which I believe most people deserve.
but if treatment is futile, let them seek other alternative methods.
ANY alternative method.
or at least inform them of the alternatives to futile treatment.
I would define futile treatment as something that is given to patient that is not expected to make the situation any better than it is. This is a tough situation that I have been going back and forth on. If i were on my death bed and wanted a treatment that I thought was going to help me I would hope that everyone and anyone would be willing to give me things that could possibly help me. EVen if they thought it wasn't going to work, It would still be worth a shot. However, If i were a doctor and knew that there was not hope for this patient, I can't help but think that this could be used in a better situation. I have the ability to make the decision. I do have a very caring heart and would probably put myself in the shoes of my patient and end up giving them the treamtent anyways. The whole issue about being able to pay is very difficult as well. My sister was in the hopspital the first 9 months of her life, we were very lucky that we had help to pay for it but it was not easy. I couldn't imagine not being able to have a chance because you couldn't pay.
ReplyDeleteFutile treatment is treatment given to a patient to help sustain life longer, but not to help them reach a cure. I believe that a person has the right to ask for futile treatment because they want to live as long as possible. They should not be denied the right to fight for their life by anybody not even doctors. However, if a patient doesn't have the resources to pay for treatment then they should not be allowed futile treatment.
ReplyDeleteI liked what one person stated earlier about Futile treatment. What I think of when futile treatment, I think of it as treatment that won't result in anything helpful and only prolong life. I want to agree with the patient if they want that futile treatment to prolong, but its also the physician's job to say something if it won't help and is unnecessary especially if the patient cannot pay it. Sometimes I wonder how often physicians have to come to blows when asking him or herself to speak out on the futile treatment.
ReplyDeleteFutile treatment is treatment that won't necessarily result in a positive outcome. It's almost useless. However, I don't think that a patient could be denied treatment that would at least if anything, make their spirits higher. Its hard though because its almost a "waste of money". In this situation, the physician needs to clearly state to the patient what the treatment will and will not do. If the treatment brings no hope of prolonging life, or curing the ailment, then that needs to be openly addressed.
ReplyDelete