FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 357:1558-1559 October 11, 2007 Number 15 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Truog, R. D. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: As a physician and clinical ethicist involved in the development and use of the Texas Advance Directives Act, I believe Truog's Perspective article (July 5 issue)¹ requires corrective focus. Most futility cases involve adults who can never recover and are subject to technologically prolonged deaths in the intensive care unit. Cases in which the family wants to continue such intervention but the physicians object are considered "futility" cases — the flip side of "right to die" cases. A due-process approach has been recommended for this troubling scenario, but the legal ramifications are uncertain. In 1999, Texas adopted . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Shanawani, H., Wenrich, M. D., Tonelli, M. R., Curtis, J. R. (2008). Meeting Physicians' Responsibilities in Providing End-of-Life Care. Chest 133: 775-786 [Abstract] [Full Text]