Research report a preliminary analysis of medical futility decisionmaking: Law and professional attitudes

Richard L. Wiener, David Eton, Vincent P. Gibbons, Jesse A. Goldner, Sandra H. Johnson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Judicial decisions reviewed in this article indicate that courts have taken two disparate approaches to disputes over futility of treatment. To explore whether a consensus on medical futility is developing among hospitals, the authors conducted a nationwide survey of health care professionals at hospitals. Respondents assigned importance ratings to factors used in recent futility decisions made at their institutions. The resulting importance ratings showed significant variation by characteristics of the institution (comparing respondents from for-profit, not-for-profit, and government hospitals) and by profession of the respondent (comparing physicians and nurses). The respondents' judgments endorsed three distinct strategies for making futility decisions (i.e., emphasis on the patient's decision preferences, providing for the patient and family, and adhering to objective medical and social norms).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)497-508
Number of pages12
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume16
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1 1998

Fingerprint

Medical Futility
Law
profit
rating
Social Norms
Health Care Surveys
Dissent and Disputes
Patient Preference
nurse
profession
physician
health care
decision making
Consensus
Decision Making
Nurses
Physicians
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

Research report a preliminary analysis of medical futility decisionmaking : Law and professional attitudes. / Wiener, Richard L.; Eton, David; Gibbons, Vincent P.; Goldner, Jesse A.; Johnson, Sandra H.

In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 16, No. 4, 01.12.1998, p. 497-508.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wiener, Richard L. ; Eton, David ; Gibbons, Vincent P. ; Goldner, Jesse A. ; Johnson, Sandra H. / Research report a preliminary analysis of medical futility decisionmaking : Law and professional attitudes. In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1998 ; Vol. 16, No. 4. pp. 497-508.
@article{a78b40fd7a5e4ef0b930f9561a71efc4,
title = "Research report a preliminary analysis of medical futility decisionmaking: Law and professional attitudes",
abstract = "Judicial decisions reviewed in this article indicate that courts have taken two disparate approaches to disputes over futility of treatment. To explore whether a consensus on medical futility is developing among hospitals, the authors conducted a nationwide survey of health care professionals at hospitals. Respondents assigned importance ratings to factors used in recent futility decisions made at their institutions. The resulting importance ratings showed significant variation by characteristics of the institution (comparing respondents from for-profit, not-for-profit, and government hospitals) and by profession of the respondent (comparing physicians and nurses). The respondents' judgments endorsed three distinct strategies for making futility decisions (i.e., emphasis on the patient's decision preferences, providing for the patient and family, and adhering to objective medical and social norms).",
author = "Wiener, {Richard L.} and David Eton and Gibbons, {Vincent P.} and Goldner, {Jesse A.} and Johnson, {Sandra H.}",
year = "1998",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "497--508",
journal = "Behavioral Sciences and the Law",
issn = "0735-3936",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Research report a preliminary analysis of medical futility decisionmaking

T2 - Law and professional attitudes

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Eton, David

AU - Gibbons, Vincent P.

AU - Goldner, Jesse A.

AU - Johnson, Sandra H.

PY - 1998/12/1

Y1 - 1998/12/1

N2 - Judicial decisions reviewed in this article indicate that courts have taken two disparate approaches to disputes over futility of treatment. To explore whether a consensus on medical futility is developing among hospitals, the authors conducted a nationwide survey of health care professionals at hospitals. Respondents assigned importance ratings to factors used in recent futility decisions made at their institutions. The resulting importance ratings showed significant variation by characteristics of the institution (comparing respondents from for-profit, not-for-profit, and government hospitals) and by profession of the respondent (comparing physicians and nurses). The respondents' judgments endorsed three distinct strategies for making futility decisions (i.e., emphasis on the patient's decision preferences, providing for the patient and family, and adhering to objective medical and social norms).

AB - Judicial decisions reviewed in this article indicate that courts have taken two disparate approaches to disputes over futility of treatment. To explore whether a consensus on medical futility is developing among hospitals, the authors conducted a nationwide survey of health care professionals at hospitals. Respondents assigned importance ratings to factors used in recent futility decisions made at their institutions. The resulting importance ratings showed significant variation by characteristics of the institution (comparing respondents from for-profit, not-for-profit, and government hospitals) and by profession of the respondent (comparing physicians and nurses). The respondents' judgments endorsed three distinct strategies for making futility decisions (i.e., emphasis on the patient's decision preferences, providing for the patient and family, and adhering to objective medical and social norms).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032440336&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032440336&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9924768

AN - SCOPUS:0032440336

VL - 16

SP - 497

EP - 508

JO - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

JF - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

SN - 0735-3936

IS - 4

ER -