My understanding of the definition of futile treatment is treatment that prolongs the life of a patient that has no significant chance of recovering or living a real life again. For example, this could mean artificially keeping someone alive that has been a coma for a year and also has cancer. This type of care should be offered. There is no reason to prevent this service if it does not deteriorate the freedom of other people. With this in mind, giving this type of treatment to someone who requests it but has no means to afford it would damage the freedom of others by driving up medical prices and now taxes. This care should only be given if the patient requests it and has the means to support it. I know that I would not spend my money on futile care for myself because I would rather spend the money while I was living a decent quality of life or leave the money to my family. If this type of care is given to anyone regardless of their means to support it they will likely not face this decision. Many people will take the futile care because it is offered to them; and they will not ponder the consequences on the rest of the world. Requiring people to pay this out of pocket or having it provided by a private insurance company gives people the right to choose. If futile care is something a person deeply values they must structure their life to accommodate that possibility. Also, if a person chooses not to take futile care they can live a better quality of life because they do not have to save for this possibility and they do not have to financially support the decision of others through taxes and inflated medical expenses.
When I think of Futile Treatment the first thing that comes to my mind is the word "useless". Futile treatment is basically trying to keep someone alive when there is no cure, reason or benefit to do so. I think Futile Treatment should be decided and offered on an individual basis. With this being said, I believe that if a patient requests Futile Treatment it should be given as long as the family of the patient and the doctor also agree to Futile Treatment. However, I do think that Futile Treatment is definitely a controversial issue that people are still faced with to this day.
I agree with the statement of futile referring to a "useless" type of treatment that will not result in a cure of any means. As soon as I read the topic, that was the first thing that came to my mind before even doing research on what it could involve. Aside from that, I believe that if an individual patient so chooses to undergo futile treatment, than their wishes should met. This can obviously become an issue when incorporating the doctors and family/friends involved, however I tend to always favor the individual since their decisions DIRECTLY involve them. So if they want to undergo something that may ultimately do nothing as far as helping is concerned, then so be it.
My thoughts exactly. Futile treatment is only good for prolonging the inevitable. I understand why some people would want to receive this kind of treatment but personally i would never want it.
Futile treatment is where they keep somebody alive with no real chance of ever recovering. I have mixed emotions about this because I understand both sides of the spectrum. I believe it should be offered because legally it is their right to choose if they want to stay alive or not if possible. But on the other hand I believe it could be a waste of time and expenses for the doctors/nurses along with the family by just prolonging the inevitable. In my personal opinion I think that if it was me being the person in the position of being kept alive I'd say yes just because I'd want everyone that wanted to say their last goodbyes to me while I was alive to be able to do so to provide some closure. But then after that is said and done I'd like the plug to be pulled.
According to Wikipedia futile treatment is “the continued provision of medical care or treatment to a patient when there is no reasonable hope of a cure or benefit.” However, I think that the definition of futile treatment should be further specified to mean it is treatment given to patients who are completely unresponsive, incapable of recovering, and are unable to perform normal bodily functions for themselves, such as breathing. I think this distinction of what futile treatment is should be added because I would not consider treatment given to a terminally ill patient who is still conscious and aware to be futile treatment. Futile treatment should be provided to those patients who request it because it is the right of every human being to be provided with the care they want to have at the end of their life. Denying the kind of care that a patient wants at the end of their life to me would be like denying them food and water.
Futile care to me means that the treatment/services provided will do no benefit, cause unnecessary discomfort and burden to the individual or family, and have no prospect of reversing the condition or alleviating pain. I don't think futile care is "keeping someone alive when they have no real chance of recovering." That's like saying "this guy has metastatic liver cancer and will almost likely die in 6 mos., so let's not bother giving him any chemo." There is a benefit to some treatments, if not physically then mentally or emotionally. It's like saying we've tried everything possible, but we'll keep trying. It gives people hope. Which is why I think futile care should still be offered. But I do think the degree should be limited. For instance, my liver cancer patient has a life expectancy of 6 months. He may benefit a little from chemo, but a liver transplant should probably not be given to him, since even recovery with that is poor.
Futile treatment should only be considered futile if defined in that manner by the patient or the assigned representative of the patient. No one has the right to determine the reason or the benefit of the treatment except the person in the position requesting or denying the treatment. It is their life. They should be able to choose how to live or die regardless of what others think.
Futile care is a medical intervention that is ineffective or serves no useful purpose, especially one capable of postponing death but offering no reasonable hope of improvement. In my opinion is should not be offered simply because it is a waste of time. Why should a doctor waste time prolonging one person’s life if there is no change for improvement in the patient when they could be attempting to help improve the condition of and possible save another patient? Once again, it is a waste of time even if the patient requests it, and for most doctors it would be unethical to prolong a patient’s life without attempting to make them better.
Futile treatment is basically treating someone that has no chance of recovering to prolong their life. This is something i think should be considered on a case to case basis. I think they are all different and cannot be all lumped into one category. If the patient wants to live, by all means i think its appropriate. I think if someone wants to live, its their right. of course it all depends on the situation and how severely the person is sick. Dying 6 days or 6 years is a huge difference. Thats why its so hard to say. But for the most part i think people have every right to live.
Really tough question. I find it hard to separate Futile Treatment from Comfort Care. I can recognize that there's a difference but drawing that line is hard. Assuming that I have enough basis to answer the question, I think that futile treatments should be offered if the patient or family of the patient can pay out of pocket for the procedure. This does not cover transplantation surgeries or others that require a waiting list (for which there are limited supplies) but if the wanted to have reconstructive surgery on their face before they die because it's something they've always wanted, for example, I think why not? If it comes out of pocket, I see no problem with it.
I do feel that futile life treatment is not worth it for the most part. A severely terminally ill patient who has no chance of any recovery should understand that receiving treatment to stay alive artificially is painful and is no way to live. Medical care is expensive and limited. It should be administered to people who have a chance of recovery for a continued quality of life. The only time I see artificial life support being ok is to prolong the patient's life in order to see family who want to say their goodbyes. After wards I believe it would be time to let go.
A futile treatment is one that satisfies all 3 conditions 1- treatment does not improve the likelyhood of survival 2- treatment does not improve the quality of life as defined by the patient 3- the perceived costs (whether it be financial, emotional, etc) outweighs the perceived benefits.
My understanding of the definition of futile treatment is treatment that prolongs the life of a patient that has no significant chance of recovering or living a real life again. For example, this could mean artificially keeping someone alive that has been a coma for a year and also has cancer. This type of care should be offered. There is no reason to prevent this service if it does not deteriorate the freedom of other people. With this in mind, giving this type of treatment to someone who requests it but has no means to afford it would damage the freedom of others by driving up medical prices and now taxes. This care should only be given if the patient requests it and has the means to support it. I know that I would not spend my money on futile care for myself because I would rather spend the money while I was living a decent quality of life or leave the money to my family. If this type of care is given to anyone regardless of their means to support it they will likely not face this decision. Many people will take the futile care because it is offered to them; and they will not ponder the consequences on the rest of the world. Requiring people to pay this out of pocket or having it provided by a private insurance company gives people the right to choose. If futile care is something a person deeply values they must structure their life to accommodate that possibility. Also, if a person chooses not to take futile care they can live a better quality of life because they do not have to save for this possibility and they do not have to financially support the decision of others through taxes and inflated medical expenses.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of Futile Treatment the first thing that comes to my mind is the word "useless". Futile treatment is basically trying to keep someone alive when there is no cure, reason or benefit to do so. I think Futile Treatment should be decided and offered on an individual basis. With this being said, I believe that if a patient requests Futile Treatment it should be given as long as the family of the patient and the doctor also agree to Futile Treatment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that Futile Treatment is definitely a controversial issue that people are still faced with to this day.
I agree with the statement of futile referring to a "useless" type of treatment that will not result in a cure of any means. As soon as I read the topic, that was the first thing that came to my mind before even doing research on what it could involve. Aside from that, I believe that if an individual patient so chooses to undergo futile treatment, than their wishes should met. This can obviously become an issue when incorporating the doctors and family/friends involved, however I tend to always favor the individual since their decisions DIRECTLY involve them. So if they want to undergo something that may ultimately do nothing as far as helping is concerned, then so be it.
DeleteMy thoughts exactly. Futile treatment is only good for prolonging the inevitable. I understand why some people would want to receive this kind of treatment but personally i would never want it.
DeleteFutile treatment is where they keep somebody alive with no real chance of ever recovering. I have mixed emotions about this because I understand both sides of the spectrum. I believe it should be offered because legally it is their right to choose if they want to stay alive or not if possible. But on the other hand I believe it could be a waste of time and expenses for the doctors/nurses along with the family by just prolonging the inevitable. In my personal opinion I think that if it was me being the person in the position of being kept alive I'd say yes just because I'd want everyone that wanted to say their last goodbyes to me while I was alive to be able to do so to provide some closure. But then after that is said and done I'd like the plug to be pulled.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wikipedia futile treatment is “the continued provision of medical care or treatment to a patient when there is no reasonable hope of a cure or benefit.” However, I think that the definition of futile treatment should be further specified to mean it is treatment given to patients who are completely unresponsive, incapable of recovering, and are unable to perform normal bodily functions for themselves, such as breathing. I think this distinction of what futile treatment is should be added because I would not consider treatment given to a terminally ill patient who is still conscious and aware to be futile treatment. Futile treatment should be provided to those patients who request it because it is the right of every human being to be provided with the care they want to have at the end of their life. Denying the kind of care that a patient wants at the end of their life to me would be like denying them food and water.
ReplyDeleteFutile care to me means that the treatment/services provided will do no benefit, cause unnecessary discomfort and burden to the individual or family, and have no prospect of reversing the condition or alleviating pain. I don't think futile care is "keeping someone alive when they have no real chance of recovering." That's like saying "this guy has metastatic liver cancer and will almost likely die in 6 mos., so let's not bother giving him any chemo." There is a benefit to some treatments, if not physically then mentally or emotionally. It's like saying we've tried everything possible, but we'll keep trying. It gives people hope. Which is why I think futile care should still be offered. But I do think the degree should be limited. For instance, my liver cancer patient has a life expectancy of 6 months. He may benefit a little from chemo, but a liver transplant should probably not be given to him, since even recovery with that is poor.
ReplyDeleteFutile treatment should only be considered futile if defined in that manner by the patient or the assigned representative of the patient. No one has the right to determine the reason or the benefit of the treatment except the person in the position requesting or denying the treatment. It is their life. They should be able to choose how to live or die regardless of what others think.
ReplyDeletefrom SHAD
ReplyDeleteFutile care is a medical intervention that is ineffective or serves no useful purpose, especially one capable of postponing death but offering no reasonable hope of improvement. In my opinion is should not be offered simply because it is a waste of time. Why should a doctor waste time prolonging one person’s life if there is no change for improvement in the patient when they could be attempting to help improve the condition of and possible save another patient? Once again, it is a waste of time even if the patient requests it, and for most doctors it would be unethical to prolong a patient’s life without attempting to make them better.
Futile treatment is basically treating someone that has no chance of recovering to prolong their life. This is something i think should be considered on a case to case basis. I think they are all different and cannot be all lumped into one category. If the patient wants to live, by all means i think its appropriate. I think if someone wants to live, its their right. of course it all depends on the situation and how severely the person is sick. Dying 6 days or 6 years is a huge difference. Thats why its so hard to say. But for the most part i think people have every right to live.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it depends on how sick the individual is. I like the idea of taking it case by case rather than the idea as a whole.
DeleteReally tough question. I find it hard to separate Futile Treatment from Comfort Care. I can recognize that there's a difference but drawing that line is hard.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that I have enough basis to answer the question, I think that futile treatments should be offered if the patient or family of the patient can pay out of pocket for the procedure. This does not cover transplantation surgeries or others that require a waiting list (for which there are limited supplies) but if the wanted to have reconstructive surgery on their face before they die because it's something they've always wanted, for example, I think why not? If it comes out of pocket, I see no problem with it.
I do feel that futile life treatment is not worth it for the most part. A severely terminally ill patient who has no chance of any recovery should understand that receiving treatment to stay alive artificially is painful and is no way to live. Medical care is expensive and limited. It should be administered to people who have a chance of recovery for a continued quality of life. The only time I see artificial life support being ok is to prolong the patient's life in order to see family who want to say their goodbyes. After wards I believe it would be time to let go.
ReplyDeleteHere's my definition from Wednesday
ReplyDeleteA futile treatment is one that satisfies all 3 conditions
1- treatment does not improve the likelyhood of survival
2- treatment does not improve the quality of life as defined by the patient
3- the perceived costs (whether it be financial, emotional, etc) outweighs the perceived benefits.