Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Jul 28;163(14):1645-9.

"Inappropriate" treatment near the end of life: conflict between religious convictions and clinical judgment.

Author information

1
Department of Medicine, Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29203, USA.

Abstract

Not infrequently, Christian patients and families provide religious justifications for an insistence on aggressive medical care near the end of life. Four commonly invoked reasons are (1). hope for a miracle, (2). refusal to give up on the God of faith, (3). a conviction that every moment of life is a gift from God and is worth preserving at any cost, and (4). a belief that suffering can have redemptive value. For each of these 4 reasons, however, there are alternative Christian interpretations that point in the direction of limiting medical intervention under certain circumstances. When clinicians believe that an intervention is medically inappropriate or inhumane, they are not necessarily obligated to provide it simply because it is demanded on religious grounds. Instead, clinicians-preferably assisted by chaplains or clergy-should discuss alternative religious interpretations with the patient or family, and should attempt to reach a consensus on the appropriate limits to life-sustaining treatment.

PMID:
12885678
DOI:
10.1001/archinte.163.14.1645
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center