Health Affairs, 24, no. 4 (2005): 976-979 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.4.976 © 2005 by Project HOPE	New Online   Senate Health Reform Bill   Rewarding Providers   Public Option Policy Brief   Health Reform & Abortion   Delivery System Reform

This Article Full Text (HTML) Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Veatch, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Veatch, R. M. Related Collections Access To Care Legal/Regulatory Issues Business Of Health Mental Health/Substance Abuse Physicians Politics Consumer Issues

End-of-Life Care

PERSPECTIVE

Terri Schiavo, Son Hudson, And ‘Nonbeneficial’ Medical Treatments

Two disputed cases about withholding life support (Terri Schiavo and Son Hudson) call for greater public discussion. Confusion arises from intermixing three kinds of cases: those (1) in which demanded treatment is physiologically futile, (2) involving competition for scarce resources, and (3) in which the treatment would likely achieve the patient’s goals although the clinician perceives those goals to be valueless. This Perspective argues that clinicians should unilaterally refuse the first but do not have legitimate roles in blocking access to the second and third. Absent scarcity, patients should have access to effective life-prolonging treatments even if clinicians see no value in them.

                      What's this?