Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:06:42.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prognosis Terminal

Truth-Telling in the Context of End-of-Life Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2014

Extract

The Caduceus in Court welcomes readers to submit articles on legal updates and discussions of issues in healthcare law to Ben Rich at [email protected].

Type
The Caduceus in Court
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Meisel, A, Kuczewski, M. Legal and ethical myths about informed consent. Archives of Internal Medicine 1996;156:2521–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Annas, GJ. Informed consent, cancer, and truth in prognosis. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;330:223–5.Google Scholar

3. Blackhall, LJ. Do patients need to know they are terminally ill? No. BMJ 2013;346:f2560.Google Scholar

4. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Hospice Data; available at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/Hospice/Medicare_Hospice_Data.html (last accessed 22 July 2013).

5. Or. Rev. Stat. Ch.423 §1; available at http://www.oregonlaws.org/glossary/definition/terminal_disease (last accessed 11 Aug 2013).

6. Collis E, Sleeman KE. Do patients need to know they are terminally ill? Yes. BMJ 2013;346:f2589.

7. SUPPORT Principal Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. JAMA 1995;1591–8.

8. Lo, B. End of life care after termination of SUPPORT. Hastings Center Report 1995;25:S6S8.Google Scholar

9. Katz, J. The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. New York: The Free Press; 1984, at 1.Google Scholar

10. Katz, J. The consent principle of the Nuremberg code: Its significance then and now. In: Annas, GJ, Grodin, MA, eds. Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992:227–39.Google Scholar

11. Beecher, HK. Ethics and clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;274:1354–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, et al. 317 P.2d 170 (1957).

13. Canterbury v. Spence 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

14. See note 13, Canterbury v. Spence, at 783–4.

15. Peters Jr PG. The quiet demise of deference to custom: Malpractice law at the millennium. Washington and Lee Law Review 2000;57:163–205.

16. See note 13, Canterbury v. Spence, at 789.

17. Bostick, NA, Sade, R, McMahon, JW, Benjamin, R. Report of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: Withholding information from patients: Rethinking the propriety of the therapeutic privilege. Journal of Clinical Ethics 2006;17:302–6, at 304.Google Scholar

18. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making Health Care Decisions: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practitioner Relationship. Vol. w. Appendices. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1982, at 245–6.

19. American Board of Internal Medicine. Caring for the Dying: Identification and Promotion of Physician Competency. Philadelphia, PA: American Board of Internal Medicine; 1996.Google Scholar

20. Institute of Medicine. Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.Google Scholar

21. Murphy, DJ, Burrows, D, Santilli, S, Kemp, AW, Tenner, S, Kreling, B. The influence of the probability of survival on patients’ preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;330:545–9.Google Scholar

22. Weeks, JC, Cook, EF, O’Day, SJ, Peterson, LM, Wenger, N, Reding, D, et al. Relationship between cancer patients’ predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences. JAMA 1998;279:1709–14.Google Scholar

23. Christakis, NA. Death Foretold: Prophecy and Prognosis in Medical Care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1999, at 84.Google Scholar

24. Daugherty, CK, Hlubocky, FJ. What are terminally ill cancer patients told about their expected deaths? A study of cancer physicians’ self-reports of prognosis disclosure. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008;26:5988–93.Google Scholar

25. Arato v. Avedon, 858 P.2d 598 (1993).

26. See note 25, Arato v. Avedon, at 601.

27. See note 25, Arato v. Avedon, at 605.

28. See note 25, Arato v. Avedon, at 606.

29. Annas, GJ. Informed consent, cancer, and truth in prognosis. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;330:223–5.Google Scholar

30. Kodish, E, Post, SG. Oncology and hope. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1995;13:1817–22.Google Scholar

31. Esserman LJ, Thompson Jr IM, Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer—an opportunity for improvement. JAMA 2013; published online 29 July 2013; available at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1722196 (last accessed 11 Aug 2013).

32. Christakis, NA. Prognostication and bioethics. Daedalus 1999;128:197214, at 209.Google Scholar

33. Education in Palliative and End-of-Life Care; available at http://www.epec.net (last accessed 11 Aug 2013).

34. Oncotalk—Improving oncologists’ communication skills; available at http://depts.washington.edu/oncotalk (last accessed 11 Aug 2013).

35. Rich, BA. Prognostication in clinical medicine: Prophecy or professional responsibility. Journal of Legal Medicine 23;297358.Google Scholar

36. Parascandola, M, Hawkins, J, Danis, M. Patient autonomy and the challenge of clinical uncertainty. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2002;12:245–64, at 258.Google Scholar

37. Freedman, B. Offering truth: One ethical approach to the uninformed cancer patient. Archives of Internal Medicine 1993;153:572–6.Google Scholar