Futile Care Theory in the News

This case looks like a Futile Care Theory case. The headline, as usual, calls it a “right to die” matter. But it appears to really be a right to live. (I never cease to be amazed at the pack mentality of the MSM.) The hospital wanted to cut off an elderly patient’s feeding tube and other treatment because she had terrible heart disease and dementia, and would not have a “meaningful” recovery. Perhaps withdrawing most interventions would be the better call, but that is a value judgment, not a medical judgment. The guardian, objected. The hospital tried to impose its view. But the court has stated that whatever happens, the hospital will not have the power to decide.

Good. That decision properly belongs with patient or duly appointed legal decision makers—or, if necessary, the courts. Doctors and bioethicists should not be allowed to impose their moral views on the quality of a patient’s life on others by refusing wanted life-sustaining treatment.