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?
Treatment when there is no avoiding death, or illness. I believe the physician should agree to provide the treatment, and do all they can, because if the situation was flipped (the physician had someone in futile treatment) they would want the same thing done. It does and does not matter if they can pay. Treatments are expensive and time consuming, but at the same time it is not humane to let someone die and not do anything to try and save them.
I think that if the treatment is necessary that the doctor should provide the treatment if it is safe for the patient. A doctor should do their job ethically and provide service when it is needed. If there is no hope for the patient and the patient can afford it I believe that the doctor should not administer the treatment. There are other people that need this care that can actually be helped.
I agree with what Bowman says. I feel like if the treatment is necessary that the doctor should provide it. If the patient wants treatment even though it wont help them I think they should still have it done to them because it is their body and no one really know how they feel other then themselves.
I also think that if the treatment is necessary then why wouldn't the doctor want to provide it. Even if the patient can't afford it or if their i no hope for the patient, I think that the doctor should definitely provide because it may bring the patient closure and will help them in some way.
Futile treatment is treatment given to a patient at the end of life that a physician knows will not do anything to save the patient. This treatment can sometimes lengthen a patient's life in which case some may consider it to be necessary. For this reason I believe that it should be the patient's decision as to if treatment is administered or not. If they wish to lengthen their life, even if it may be painful and only for a short time, it should be their decision to head in this direction as opposed more a a palliative care one. Unfortunately in today's society, cost and the ability to pay for treatment is a factor. This element goes into the field of insurance and getting different tests and treatments approved. Therefore the ability of a patient to pay for care depends on the insurance's approval as well as the families financial state if this approval is not made.
Futile treatment is that which can be given to a patient but will yield no particular results and will not significantly prolong death. I feel that if some one is dying then in most cases there is no need for futile treatment but if it is the wish of the patient then it should be honored. Just because the treatment may yield no physical results, the mere act of giving the treatment could change a patients mental state for the better. If the patient can pay than by all means continue treatment but if they cannot pay then we as a community would need to decide that paying for the futile treatment is worth it. Even if it just improves a patients mental outlook.
In response to your comment about the treatment helping a patient's mental state, I have to disagree. I think that by allowing the physicians to continue on with futile treatments, the patients are holding out hope and are, therefore, in denial of their imminent death.
The debate is too heavily placed on the rights of the physician to perform certain procedures, rather than the right of the patient to receive these procedures. As a future health care provider, I feel it is my job to provide the absolute best care possible while maintaining the desires of the patient. It is my duty to provide the patient with all options of treatment along with the pros and cons that each option possesses. It is then the responsibility of the patient to choose their treatment and for myself, and all health care providers, to perform it to the best of our abilities. Whether a patient wants to continue treatment, despite whether it is futile or not, or to simply end treatment, that is their explicit right as a patient. If the patient is well informed of all options and are competent to make decisions, then their desires ought to have final say in their treatment.
Futile treatment is treatment that will not affect the outcome of a clinical experience. I would suggest that in a system of rationing, as has been suggested we possess, it might be expected there is a societal expectation that patients should not request futile treatments when it is a waste of resources.
However, such a point ignores the system we currently function under. The medical establishment as it currently exists is not a rationing system, but a for-profit system (in the US, primarily). Such a system will grant and refuse treatments based on an ability to pay for it regardless of their futility.
Transition to a system of actual rationing where the only reason to refuse a treatment is futility should be seriously considered before any discussion about restricting patients from requesting futile treatment. It is not fair if one side of the discussion gets to treat this as a market and the other has to treat it as a rationed necessity (a problem that is already significant in the US medical system).
Futile treatment is a treatment which there is a low percentage chance of cure or benefit for a patient. It will not affect the outcome of the patient, mainly just cost the patient money. If a patient desired the treatment, I do not feel like a doctor or physician should perform the surgery or procedure. I feel that there are more patients that will benefit from the procedure and if a patient knew that the treatment wouldn't do anything, they should not want that procedure. Futile care is different from euthanasia because unlike euthanasia, futile care is a natural death. Euthanasia is actively trying to end ones life, while futile care is more of a natural death.
Futile treatment is treatment that has little effect on an individual. I feel that if a patient desires this type of treatment they deserve to have it. It is their body and if it comforts them thinking it could help then so be it. Now in terms of not being able to pay for it is a different story. If it is going to effect others because they can not pay for it I feel that it should not be administered. If its going to go to the point where it will effect others then I do not think they should get the treatment.
A physician should do all he or she can to make sure a patient has the best chance. if the treatment is futile and will do nothing to improve the patients condition or has the chance to make the condition for the patient worse the physician should not go with the treatment. If the patient refuses to let the treatment not happen, a physician should if possible fake it, give a painkiller, or placebo if painkillers would worsen the condition. the brain is easy to trick and the patient will likely feel better. Cost of treatment shouldn't be a problem in the first place affordable health care should be a right not a privilege, but that is another issue.
Futile treatment is treatment when there is practically no chance that it will cure the illness of the patient. I believe the doctor however should agree to give the treatment if the patient ask for it. The reason for giving it is not because the treatment will help but the idea of receiving the treatment can help put the patients mind at ease. I believe the patient should be able to receive the treatment whether they can pay or not. Money isn't everything in life, someone with no money or thousands of dollars should treated the same in regards to medical practice.
I think that a physician should administer treatment even if it is considered futile. First off you never know. A miracle could happen and the treatment could save that person's life. A doctor should never give up trying to save a person until they are officially gone. Humans have been known to do some amazing things. Money should never be an issue. Of course health care isn't free but if we have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to save a life, you better believe we are going to. If it were you dying would you want them to give up on you?
I agree with you Nick. We will never know if the treatment could provide a miracle unless we administer it. I like how you said how would you feel if they were to give up on you. Its always easy to say that we shouldn't provide the treatment until we are in a position where it affects us first hand.
Futile treatment is treatment provided to the patient that will (most often) not yield any benefits or prolong the life of the patient.
I believe that when physicians have reached the point where treatment has become futile, they, along with a group of other physicians, should be able to make the decision to stop the treatments. Most often, patients will do everything they can, including endless futile treatments, because they keep holding out hope and are in denial and believe that something will happen. If physicians were able to deem treatment futile and stop the treatment, this may possible help the patient come to terms with their own death and allow the physicians to focus on keeping the patient comfortable.
Like I said, if the treatment is futile, I do not think it should be performed and this applies to those who can and cannot pay for their treatments any longer. However, if there is hope that the treatment may work and the person cannot pay, I do believe treatment should still be given.
I agree with you one hundred percent. There is a misconception that deeming care futile will be an abrupt process. This is not the case. No one wants bad news, but continuing to perform procedures on patients, when it fails to benefit said patients, is just as bad as failing to do anything at all. And most of the time, the patient knows that they are near the end anyway. Give them and the family time to make decisions and then allow them the dignity of stopping.
I believe that the doctor has to honor the patients wishes. If the patient is able to afford the treatment and understands that there will most likely be no upside and they still want it, then its the doctors obligations to administer the treatment. I do not think this should be the case, but the its the patients body, they are able to do what they please. Also everyone's body reacts differently. There is always a slim chance that the treatment very well could have a positive side affect but we would never know until the treatment was carried out.
Treatment when there is no avoiding death, or illness. I believe the physician should agree to provide the treatment, and do all they can, because if the situation was flipped (the physician had someone in futile treatment) they would want the same thing done. It does and does not matter if they can pay. Treatments are expensive and time consuming, but at the same time it is not humane to let someone die and not do anything to try and save them.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the treatment is necessary that the doctor should provide the treatment if it is safe for the patient. A doctor should do their job ethically and provide service when it is needed. If there is no hope for the patient and the patient can afford it I believe that the doctor should not administer the treatment. There are other people that need this care that can actually be helped.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Bowman says. I feel like if the treatment is necessary that the doctor should provide it. If the patient wants treatment even though it wont help them I think they should still have it done to them because it is their body and no one really know how they feel other then themselves.
DeleteI also think that if the treatment is necessary then why wouldn't the doctor want to provide it. Even if the patient can't afford it or if their i no hope for the patient, I think that the doctor should definitely provide because it may bring the patient closure and will help them in some way.
DeleteFutile treatment is treatment given to a patient at the end of life that a physician knows will not do anything to save the patient. This treatment can sometimes lengthen a patient's life in which case some may consider it to be necessary. For this reason I believe that it should be the patient's decision as to if treatment is administered or not. If they wish to lengthen their life, even if it may be painful and only for a short time, it should be their decision to head in this direction as opposed more a a palliative care one. Unfortunately in today's society, cost and the ability to pay for treatment is a factor. This element goes into the field of insurance and getting different tests and treatments approved. Therefore the ability of a patient to pay for care depends on the insurance's approval as well as the families financial state if this approval is not made.
ReplyDeleteFutile treatment is that which can be given to a patient but will yield no particular results and will not significantly prolong death. I feel that if some one is dying then in most cases there is no need for futile treatment but if it is the wish of the patient then it should be honored. Just because the treatment may yield no physical results, the mere act of giving the treatment could change a patients mental state for the better. If the patient can pay than by all means continue treatment but if they cannot pay then we as a community would need to decide that paying for the futile treatment is worth it. Even if it just improves a patients mental outlook.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comment about the treatment helping a patient's mental state, I have to disagree. I think that by allowing the physicians to continue on with futile treatments, the patients are holding out hope and are, therefore, in denial of their imminent death.
DeleteThe debate is too heavily placed on the rights of the physician to perform certain procedures, rather than the right of the patient to receive these procedures. As a future health care provider, I feel it is my job to provide the absolute best care possible while maintaining the desires of the patient. It is my duty to provide the patient with all options of treatment along with the pros and cons that each option possesses. It is then the responsibility of the patient to choose their treatment and for myself, and all health care providers, to perform it to the best of our abilities. Whether a patient wants to continue treatment, despite whether it is futile or not, or to simply end treatment, that is their explicit right as a patient. If the patient is well informed of all options and are competent to make decisions, then their desires ought to have final say in their treatment.
ReplyDeleteFutile treatment is treatment that will not affect the outcome of a clinical experience. I would suggest that in a system of rationing, as has been suggested we possess, it might be expected there is a societal expectation that patients should not request futile treatments when it is a waste of resources.
ReplyDeleteHowever, such a point ignores the system we currently function under. The medical establishment as it currently exists is not a rationing system, but a for-profit system (in the US, primarily). Such a system will grant and refuse treatments based on an ability to pay for it regardless of their futility.
Transition to a system of actual rationing where the only reason to refuse a treatment is futility should be seriously considered before any discussion about restricting patients from requesting futile treatment. It is not fair if one side of the discussion gets to treat this as a market and the other has to treat it as a rationed necessity (a problem that is already significant in the US medical system).
Futile treatment is a treatment which there is a low percentage chance of cure or benefit for a patient. It will not affect the outcome of the patient, mainly just cost the patient money. If a patient desired the treatment, I do not feel like a doctor or physician should perform the surgery or procedure. I feel that there are more patients that will benefit from the procedure and if a patient knew that the treatment wouldn't do anything, they should not want that procedure.
ReplyDeleteFutile care is different from euthanasia because unlike euthanasia, futile care is a natural death. Euthanasia is actively trying to end ones life, while futile care is more of a natural death.
Futile treatment is treatment that has little effect on an individual. I feel that if a patient desires this type of treatment they deserve to have it. It is their body and if it comforts them thinking it could help then so be it. Now in terms of not being able to pay for it is a different story. If it is going to effect others because they can not pay for it I feel that it should not be administered. If its going to go to the point where it will effect others then I do not think they should get the treatment.
ReplyDeleteA physician should do all he or she can to make sure a patient has the best chance. if the treatment is futile and will do nothing to improve the patients condition or has the chance to make the condition for the patient worse the physician should not go with the treatment. If the patient refuses to let the treatment not happen, a physician should if possible fake it, give a painkiller, or placebo if painkillers would worsen the condition. the brain is easy to trick and the patient will likely feel better. Cost of treatment shouldn't be a problem in the first place affordable health care should be a right not a privilege, but that is another issue.
ReplyDeleteFutile treatment is treatment when there is practically no chance that it will cure the illness of the patient. I believe the doctor however should agree to give the treatment if the patient ask for it. The reason for giving it is not because the treatment will help but the idea of receiving the treatment can help put the patients mind at ease. I believe the patient should be able to receive the treatment whether they can pay or not. Money isn't everything in life, someone with no money or thousands of dollars should treated the same in regards to medical practice.
ReplyDeleteI think that a physician should administer treatment even if it is considered futile. First off you never know. A miracle could happen and the treatment could save that person's life. A doctor should never give up trying to save a person until they are officially gone. Humans have been known to do some amazing things. Money should never be an issue. Of course health care isn't free but if we have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to save a life, you better believe we are going to. If it were you dying would you want them to give up on you?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Nick. We will never know if the treatment could provide a miracle unless we administer it. I like how you said how would you feel if they were to give up on you. Its always easy to say that we shouldn't provide the treatment until we are in a position where it affects us first hand.
DeleteFutile treatment is treatment provided to the patient that will (most often) not yield any benefits or prolong the life of the patient.
ReplyDeleteI believe that when physicians have reached the point where treatment has become futile, they, along with a group of other physicians, should be able to make the decision to stop the treatments. Most often, patients will do everything they can, including endless futile treatments, because they keep holding out hope and are in denial and believe that something will happen. If physicians were able to deem treatment futile and stop the treatment, this may possible help the patient come to terms with their own death and allow the physicians to focus on keeping the patient comfortable.
Like I said, if the treatment is futile, I do not think it should be performed and this applies to those who can and cannot pay for their treatments any longer. However, if there is hope that the treatment may work and the person cannot pay, I do believe treatment should still be given.
I agree with you one hundred percent. There is a misconception that deeming care futile will be an abrupt process. This is not the case. No one wants bad news, but continuing to perform procedures on patients, when it fails to benefit said patients, is just as bad as failing to do anything at all. And most of the time, the patient knows that they are near the end anyway. Give them and the family time to make decisions and then allow them the dignity of stopping.
DeleteI believe that the doctor has to honor the patients wishes. If the patient is able to afford the treatment and understands that there will most likely be no upside and they still want it, then its the doctors obligations to administer the treatment. I do not think this should be the case, but the its the patients body, they are able to do what they please. Also everyone's body reacts differently. There is always a slim chance that the treatment very well could have a positive side affect but we would never know until the treatment was carried out.
ReplyDelete