寻求转院如何经常无法帮助界定医疗不当治疗

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Hastings Center Report Pub Date : 2024-04-19 DOI:10.1002/hast.1572
Douglas B. White, Thaddeus M. Pope
{"title":"寻求转院如何经常无法帮助界定医疗不当治疗","authors":"Douglas B. White,&nbsp;Thaddeus M. Pope","doi":"10.1002/hast.1572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p><i>On September 1, 2023, Texas made important revisions to it its decades-old statute granting legal safe harbor immunity to physicians who withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment over the objection of critically ill patients’ surrogate decision-makers. However, lawmakers left untouched glaring flaws in a key safeguard for patients—the transfer option. The transfer option is ethically important because, when no hospital is willing to accept the patient in transfer, that fact is taken as strong evidence that the surrogates’ treatment requests fall outside accepted medical practice. But there are serious shortcomings in how the transfer option is carried out in Texas and many other states, which undermines the ethical usefulness of the process. We identify these shortcomings and recommend revisions to state statutes and professional guidelines to overcome them</i>.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.1572","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Seeking Transfer Often Fails to Help Define Medically Inappropriate Treatment\",\"authors\":\"Douglas B. White,&nbsp;Thaddeus M. Pope\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.1572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p><i>On September 1, 2023, Texas made important revisions to it its decades-old statute granting legal safe harbor immunity to physicians who withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment over the objection of critically ill patients’ surrogate decision-makers. However, lawmakers left untouched glaring flaws in a key safeguard for patients—the transfer option. The transfer option is ethically important because, when no hospital is willing to accept the patient in transfer, that fact is taken as strong evidence that the surrogates’ treatment requests fall outside accepted medical practice. But there are serious shortcomings in how the transfer option is carried out in Texas and many other states, which undermines the ethical usefulness of the process. We identify these shortcomings and recommend revisions to state statutes and professional guidelines to overcome them</i>.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.1572\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1572\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.1572","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2023 年 9 月 1 日,得克萨斯州对其已有数十年历史的法规进行了重要修订,该法规规定,医生在危重患者的代理决策者反对的情况下扣留或撤销维持生命的治疗时,可获得法律安全港豁免权。然而,立法者却没有触及患者的一项关键保障措施--转院选择--中存在的明显缺陷。转院选择在伦理上非常重要,因为当没有医院愿意接收转院病人时,这一事实就被视为代理决定人的治疗要求不符合公认医疗惯例的有力证据。但是,在得克萨斯州和其他许多州,转院选择的执行方式存在严重缺陷,这削弱了该程序在伦理方面的作用。我们指出了这些缺陷,并建议修订州法规和专业指南,以克服这些缺陷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Seeking Transfer Often Fails to Help Define Medically Inappropriate Treatment

On September 1, 2023, Texas made important revisions to it its decades-old statute granting legal safe harbor immunity to physicians who withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment over the objection of critically ill patients’ surrogate decision-makers. However, lawmakers left untouched glaring flaws in a key safeguard for patients—the transfer option. The transfer option is ethically important because, when no hospital is willing to accept the patient in transfer, that fact is taken as strong evidence that the surrogates’ treatment requests fall outside accepted medical practice. But there are serious shortcomings in how the transfer option is carried out in Texas and many other states, which undermines the ethical usefulness of the process. We identify these shortcomings and recommend revisions to state statutes and professional guidelines to overcome them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
期刊最新文献
Strategic Ethics: Physician Associations and Their Roles in Pursuing Racial Equity. The Bioethicist as Healer. Gender and Sport In Defense of Normothermic Regional Perfusion Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1