ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2016
Medically Inappropriate or Futile Treatment: Deliberation and Justification.
Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians and relatives facing end-of-life decisions in intensive care: ethical insights from a comparison of French and American models.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Decision-Making Approaches Used to Limit Potentially Nonbeneficial Life-Prolonging Interventions.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Competing World Views, Professional Norms, and Conscience.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025Article
- Ethics of ICU triage during COVID-19.British medical bulletin · 2021Review
- Explaining the Process of Determining Futility Increases Lay Public Acceptance.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2019Article
- Death, Devices, and Double Effect.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2019Article
- Translating futility.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2017Article
- Physicians' Professionally Responsible Power: A Core Concept of Clinical Ethics.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reframes the futility debate, moving away from the question "Who decides when to end what is considered to be a medically inappropriate or futile treatment?" and toward the question "How can society make policy that will best account for the multitude of values and conflicts involved in such decision-making?" It offers a pragmatist moral epistemology that provides us with (1) a clear justification of why it is important to take best standards, norms, and physician judgment seriously and (2) a clear justification of why ample opportunity must be made for patients, families, and society to challenge those standards and norms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.