【24h】

THE ABUSE OF FUTILITY

机译:滥用无用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Two recent policy statements by major providers of critical care have rejected the concept and language of "medical futility," on the ground that there is no universal consensus on a definition. They recommend using "potentially inappropriate" or "inappropriate" instead. We argue that their proposed terms are vague even misleadingin the ICU setting, where serious life-and-death decisions are made. Whatever specific meaning the exclusive world of critical care might wish to give to the word inappropriate, in the lay world the term is so broad it trivializes the activity. We also point out that there is no universal consensus on the definition of death, the right to abortion, or the right to refuse blood products, yet medicine carries on. One advantage of the term "medical futility" is that it confirms unambiguously that human beings are mortal, and medicine's powers are limited. It leads more naturally to integrating palliative and comfort care into critical care decision-making and encourages health providers to think more deeply about their role in the inevitable ending of their patients' lives.
机译:主要关键护理提供者最近的两项政策陈述拒绝了“医学无人物”的概念和语言,就是对定义没有普遍共识。他们建议使用“潜在不合适的”或“不合适”。我们认为,拟议的术语甚至误导了ICU环境,在那里进行严重的生死决定。无论特别关注的独家世界的特定意义可能希望给予不合适的话,在Lay World中,这个术语如此宽泛,它将这项活动规范了。我们还指出,对死亡定义,堕胎权或拒绝血液产品的权利没有普遍共识,而药物则提供。 “医学无人物”一词的一个优势是,毫不含糊地证实,人类是凡人,医学的权力有限。它更自然地将姑息性和舒适性融入关键护理决策,并鼓励卫生供应商更深入地思考他们在患者生命的不可避免的结束中的作用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号