Consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Ethics Committee regarding futile and other possibly inadvisable treatments
- 1 May 1997
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Critical Care Medicine
- Vol. 25 (5) , 887-891
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199705000-00028
Abstract
Society must always face the reality of limited medical resources and must find mechanisms for distributing these resources fairly and efficiently. One recent approach for distributing limited medical resources has been the development of policies that limit the availability of futile treatments. The objectives of this consensus statement are as follows: a) to define futility and thereby enable a clear discussion of the issues; and b) to identify principles and procedures for resolving cases in which life-sustaining treatment may be futile or inadvisable. A literature review, synthesis, and committee discussion. Treatments should be defined as futile only when they will not accomplish their intended goal. Treatments that are extremely unlikely to be beneficial, are extremely costly, or are of uncertain benefit may be considered inappropriate and hence inadvisable, but should not be labeled futile. Futile treatments constitute a small fraction of medical care. Thus, employing the concept of futile care in decision-making will not primarily contribute to a reduction in resource use. Nonetheless, communities have a legitimate interest in allocating medical resources by limiting inadvisable treatments. Communities should seek to do so using a rationale that is explicit, equitable, and democratic; that does not disadvantage the disabled, poor, or uninsured; and that recognizes the diversity of individual values and goals. Policies to limit inadvisable treatment should have the following characteristics: a) be disclosed in the public record; b) reflect moral values acceptable to the community; c) not be based exclusively on prognostic scoring systems; d) articulate appellate mechanisms; and e) be recognized by the courts. Healthcare organizations that control payment have a profound influence on treatment decisions and should formally address criteria for determining when treatments are inadvisable and should share accountability for those decisions. (Crit Care Med 1997; 25:887-891)Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Resource consumption and the extent of futile care among patients in a pediatric intensive care unit settingThe Journal of Pediatrics, 1996
- Prognosis‐Based Futility Guidelines: Does Anyone Win?Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1994
- Futility Assessments and the Doctor‐Patient RelationshipJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1994
- The Physician's Role in Determining FutilityJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1994
- Futility in Clinical Practice: Report on a Congress of Clinical SocietiesJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1994
- The Futility Debate: Effective versus Beneficial InterventionJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1994
- Necessity, Futility, and the Good SocietyJournal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1994
- Futility and rationingThe American Journal of Medicine, 1992
- Medical Futility: Its Meaning and Ethical ImplicationsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1990
- The Physician's Obligation to Prolong Life: A Medical Duty without Classical RootsHastings Center Report, 1978