When Caring for Critically Ill Patients, Do Clinicians Have a Responsibility to Be Innovative and Try Unproven Approaches When Accepted Approaches Are Failing?

Authors: Rubin, Bruce K.¹; Steinberg, Kenneth P.²

Source: Respiratory Care, Volume 52, Number 4, April 2007 , pp. 408-415(8)

Publisher: The Journal Respiratory Care Company

Buy & download fulltext article:

The full text article is not available for purchase.

The publisher only permits individual articles to be downloaded by subscribers.

Abstract:

As the first paper in this Journal Conference on intensive care unit controversies, the editors wished us to set the tone for the debate by discussing the ethics of medical "adventurism" in the intensive care unit. More life-or-death decisions are made in the intensive care unit than elsewhere in the hospital, and the critical care specialist often sees himself or herself as a warrior in a battle with death. This adrenaline-charged calling attracts highly intelligent, hard-working, and compassionate caregivers, as well as fiercely independent clinicians. The result of this is that critical care specialists passionately debate about the meaning and application of published "evidence" and this leads to thoughtful debate, as exemplified by the papers in this and the next issue of Respiratory Care, as well as thoughtless and often dangerous disregard for evidence-based medicine. Physicians are morally obligated to provide the best and most appropriate care possible for their patients, but when accepted approaches are failing and a critically ill patient is getting worse, the critical care physician must make a decision regarding innovative therapy, based on the patient's prognosis, the available evidence, the resources on hand, the expertise of the physicians, and the values of the patient and the physician. This decision may lead, at times, to trying unproven and innovative strategies to achieve a clinical goal. In such cases, it is to be hoped that this can be done in such a way that data are formally and prospectively collected to increase our knowledge.

Keywords: ETHICS; ADVENTURISM; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; FDA; PATIENT SAFETY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; CLINICAL TRIALS

Document Type: Research article

Affiliations: 1: Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina 2: Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Publication date: 2007-04-01

More about this publication?

As of January 1, 2013, Respiratory Care content will no longer be hosted on ingentaconnect. Please contact the publisher at info@aarc.org for information on how to continue access to this title.
Editorial Board
Information for Authors
Submit a Paper
Subscribe to this Title
Membership Information
Information for Advertisers
Podcasts
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Past OPEN FORUM Abstracts
ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

When Caring for Critically Ill Patients, Do Clinicians Have a Responsibility to Be Innovative and Try Unproven Approaches When Accepted Approaches Are Failing?

Buy & download fulltext article:

Tools

Key

Text size:

Useful pages