New in the Journal of Medicine & Philosophy: “Medically Inappropriate or Futile Treatment: Deliberation and Justification.”
Cheryl J. Misak, Douglas B. White and Robert D. Truog reframe the futility debate. They move away from the question: “Who decides when to end what is considered to be a medically inappropriate or futile treatment?”
Instead, they move toward the question: “How can society make policy that will best account for the multitude of values and conflicts involved in such decision-making?”
The authors offer a pragmatist moral epistemology that provides us with
(1) a clear justification of why it is important to take best standards, norms, and physician judgment seriously and
(2) a clear justification of why ample opportunity must be made for patients, families, and society to challenge those standards and norms.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.