{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,29]],"date-time":"2024-05-29T18:29:03Z","timestamp":1717007343887},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[1998,7,1]],"date-time":"1998-07-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":899251200000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Camb Q Healthc Ethics"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[1998,7]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>Howard Brody expresses concern that citing the \n\u201ctwo cases that put futility on the map,\u201d namely \nHelga Wanglie and Baby K, may be providing ammunition to \nthe opponents of the concept of medical futility. He in \nfact joins well-known opponents of the concept of medical \nfutility in arguing that it is one thing for the physician \nto say whether a particular intervention will promote an \nidentified goal, quite another to say whether a goal is \nworth pursuing. In the latter instance, physicians are \nlaying themselves open \u201cto the criticism of taking \non basic value judgments that are more appropriately left \nto patients and their surrogates.\u201d Brody states that \nin both the Wanglie and Baby K cases, the \u201cbasic \nvalue judgments\u201d had to do with the worthiness of \nmaintaining unconscious life via medical technology. \nHe classifies this as \u201ca question of professional \nintegrity\u2014but not a question of futility,\u201d \nadding that \u201cmore than semantics hinges on this \ndistinction.\u201d The \u201cmore than semantics\u201d \nfactor is a pragmatic, even political one. Failure to make \nthis distinction renders physicians \u201cthat much more \nsuspect and less trustworthy in the public debate.\u201d<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/s0963180198223085","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2002,7,27]],"date-time":"2002-07-27T09:44:43Z","timestamp":1027763083000},"page":"273-278","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":6,"title":["Commentary: Bringing Clarity to the Futility Debate: Are \nthe Cases Wrong? Lawrence J. Schneiderman"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"7","author":[{"given":"Lawrence J.","family":"Schneiderman","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[1998,7,1]]},"container-title":["Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0963180198223085","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,2]],"date-time":"2019-09-02T12:14:37Z","timestamp":1567426477000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0963180198223085\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[1998,7]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[1998,7]]}},"alternative-id":["S0963180198223085"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s0963180198223085","relation":{},"ISSN":["0963-1801","1469-2147"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0963-1801","type":"print"},{"value":"1469-2147","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[1998,7]]}}}