| Title |
When Is Medical Treatment Futile?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40134.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deborah L Kasman |
| Abstract |
A difficult ethical conundrum in clinical medicine is determining when to withdraw or withhold treatments deemed medically futile. These decisions are particularly complex when physicians have less experience with these discussions, when families and providers disagree about benefits from treatment, and when cultural disparities are involved in misunderstandings. This paper elucidates the concept of "medical futility," demonstrates the application of futility to practical patient care decisions, and suggests means for physicians to negotiate transitions from aggressive treatment to comfort care with patients and their families. Ultimately, respect of persons and beneficent approaches can lead to ethically and morally viable solutions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 35% |
| United States | 3 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Moldova, Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 26% |
| Scientists | 4 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 23% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 19% |
| Unknown | 26 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,639,034
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,273
of 8,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,106
of 75,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 75,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.