Miller-Smith Laura
Perspect Biol Med. 2018;60(3):403-407. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2018.0015.
Futility has wrongly been applied over the past decades to clinical scenarios where treatment disputes exist, but where true physiological futility is not certain. This particularly applies to the pediatric critical care arena, where a major source of ethical debate and moral concern surrounds decisions about appropriateness of treatment, and not necessarily futility. In the pediatric intensive care unit, Schneiderman and colleagues' (2017) definitions of quantitative and qualitative futility are rarely applicable. Attempted alterations to the definition of futility have failed to encapsulate the complex and complicated clinical scenarios encountered, as well as the difficulty of balancing the provision of best medical advice with parental values and authority. The Multiorganization Policy Statement recognizes the difference between futile and potentially inappropriate treatments and puts forth communication strategies to reconcile disputes about the latter. This approach is of value to the greater medical community, including pediatric critical care, and also restores an important and specific meaning to the term futile-a word whose meaning should be unambiguously clear.
在过去几十年里,“无意义”一词被错误地应用于存在治疗争议但真正的生理无意义并不确定的临床场景中。这在儿科重症监护领域尤为适用,在该领域,伦理辩论和道德关注的一个主要来源围绕着治疗适当性的决策,而不一定是无意义。在儿科重症监护病房,施奈德曼及其同事(2017年)对定量和定性无意义的定义很少适用。对无意义定义的尝试性修改未能涵盖所遇到的复杂临床场景,以及在提供最佳医疗建议与父母价值观和权威之间进行平衡的困难。多组织政策声明认识到无意义治疗和潜在不适当治疗之间的区别,并提出了调和关于后者的争议的沟通策略。这种方法对包括儿科重症监护在内的更广泛的医学界有价值,也恢复了“无意义”一词的重要而特定的含义——这个词的含义应该明确无误。