Why the term ‘persistent therapy’ is not worse than the term ‘medical futility’

Bibliographic Data

ID21515419
AuthorsMarcin Paweł Ferdynus (0000-0003-0176-1023, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume48
Issue5
Pagesmedethics-2021-107609
Publication date2021-10-26
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Medical Ethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0306-6800 • E-ISSN: 1473-4257
PublisherBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/medethics-2021-107609
PMID34702765
OpenAlexW3208872506
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited13

The discussion around the use of the term ‘medical futility’ began in the late 1980s. The Polish Working Group on End-of-Life Ethics (PWG) joined this discussion in 2008. They offered their own approach to the issues regarding medical futility based on the category of persistent therapy. According to the PWG, ‘persistent therapy is the use of medical procedures to maintain the life function of the terminally ill in a way that prolongs their dying, introducing excessive suffering or violating their dignity’. In this paper I attempt to show that the term ‘persistent therapy’ is neither worse nor better than the term ‘medical futility’, but it captures different aspects and nuances. Additionally, the Polish social and religious background plays a significant role in shaping the category of persistent therapy

Dignity · Intensive care medicine · Medical ethics · Medical therapy · Medical treatment · Palliative care · Political science · Psychiatry · Psychotherapist · Terminally ill · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Ethics in medical practice · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues · Psychology · Surgery

Tools

Open DOI