Knowlton Samantha F, Fins Joseph J
Perspect Biol Med. 2018;60(3):373-382. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2018.0011.
Futility disputes are more likely to be resolved-and relational breaches repaired-by engaging in a process that fosters communication between clinicians, patients, and families. This essay calls for mediative fluency. The preemptive use of a futility definition can stifle conversation when it is needed most, exacerbating the very power imbalances and associated health disparities that often precipitate futility disputes. When clinicians, patients, and families engage in dialogue, clinicians can appreciate what motivates requests for what is thought to be futile care, and patients and families can better understand the limits of available therapies. This sharing of knowledge, values, and attitudes cannot be achieved through the unilateral invocation of a futility definition. Furthermore, futility definitions are prone to interpretative judgment by clinicians and can be informed by the norms and attitudes attendant to a practitioner's medical specialty. They also need to be interpreted in the context of emerging trends in medical therapeutics and in relation to the clinical details of each case. In the aggregate, these challenges make the application of a futility definition futile.
通过开展一个促进临床医生、患者及其家属之间沟通的过程,无意义争议更有可能得到解决,关系破裂也更有可能得到修复。本文提倡具备调解能力。在最需要对话的时候,预先使用无意义的定义可能会扼杀对话,加剧往往引发无意义争议的权力失衡及相关的健康差距。当临床医生、患者及其家属进行对话时,临床医生能够理解促使人们要求提供被认为是无意义治疗的动机,而患者及其家属能够更好地理解现有治疗方法的局限性。知识、价值观和态度的这种共享无法通过单方面援引无意义的定义来实现。此外,无意义的定义容易受到临床医生的解释性判断影响,并且可能受到从业者医学专业相关规范和态度的影响。它们还需要在医学治疗的新趋势背景下以及与每个病例的临床细节相关的情况下进行解释。总体而言,这些挑战使得应用无意义的定义变得毫无意义。