Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Third Critique of Buchman and Chalfin’s Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
ICU Resource Allocation in the New Millennium

  • 758 Accesses

Abstract

Drs. Buchman and Chalfin’s chapter “Changing normative beliefs and expectations in critical care for the McDonnell Norms Group” identifies several important issues related to critical care medicine and health care in general worldwide. In formulating a workable plan to care for sick people wordwide in the future, several important issues which have been identified in this and previous chapters must be addressed. These include issues related to individual rights vs. collective good, the physician’s duty to the individual patient or to society, the patient’s right to die evolving into a duty to die, who decides, what is benefit who defines it and the process of intensive care triage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Levinsky NG. The doctor’s master. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:1573–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sprung CL, Raphaely RC. Responsibilities of critical care professionals in setting medical policies for foregoing life-sustaining treatments. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:787.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sprung CL, Eidelman LA, Steinberg A. Is the patient’s right to die evolving into a duty to die?: Medical decision making and ethical evaluations in health care. J Eval Clin Pract. 1997;3: 69–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tomlinson T, Brody H. Futility and the ethics of resuscitation. JAMA. 1990;264:1276–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sprung CL, Cohen SL, Sjokvist P, et al. End of life practices in European intensive care units – The Ethicus Study. JAMA. 2003;290:790–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sprung CL, Maia P, Bulow HH, et al.; the Ethicus Study Group. The importance of religious affiliation and culture on end-of-life decisions in European intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2007:33:1732–9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carlet J, Thijs LG, Antonelli M, et al. Challenges in end-of-life care in the ICU. Statement of the 5th International Consensus Conference in Critical Care: Brussels, Belgium, April 2003. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:770–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Task Force on Ethics of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Consensus report on the ethics of foregoing life-sustaining treatments in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:1435–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Truog RD, Brett AS, Frader J. The problem with futility. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:1560–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Society of Critical Care Medicine. Consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Ethics Committee regarding futile and other possibly inadvisable treatments. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:887–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Consensus statement on the Triage of Critically III Patients. JAMA. 1994;271:1200–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Attitudes of critical care medicine professionals concerning distribution of intensive care resources. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:358–62.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vincent JL. European attitudes towards ethical problems in intensive care medicine: results of an ethical questionnaire. Intensive Care Med. 1990;16:256–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Strauss MJ, LoGerfo JP, Yeltatzie JA, Temkin N, Hudson LD. Rationing of intensive care unit services. An everyday occurance. JAMA. 1986;255:1143–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lyons RA, Wareham K, Hutchings HA, Major E, Ferguson B. Population requirement for adult critical-care beds:a prospective quantitative and qualitative study. Lancet. 2000;355:595–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Simchen E, Sprung CL, Galai N, et al. Survival of critically ill patients hospitalized in and out of intensive care units under paucity of intensive care unit beds. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1654–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Singer DE, Carr PL, Mulley AG, et al. Rationing intensive care—physician responses to a resource shortage. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1155–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Franklin C, Rackow EC, Mandoni B, et al. Triage considerations in medical intensive care. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:1455–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Danis M, Patrick DL, Southerland LI, et al. Patients’ and families’ preferences for medical intensive care. JAMA. 1988;260:797–802.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sprung CL, Geber D, Eidelman LA, et al. Evaluation of triage decisions for intensive care admission. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:1073–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Task Force of the American College of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Critical Care Medicine. Guidelines for intensive care unit admission, discharge and triage. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:633–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. ATS Board of Directors. Fair allocation of intensive care unit resources. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156:1282–301.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Chevret S. Compliance with triage to intensive care recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:2132–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA. 1995;274:1591–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, General Intensive Care Unit, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, 12000, Jerusalem, 91120, Israel

    Charles L. Sprung M.D.

Authors
  1. Charles L. Sprung M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles L. Sprung M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. and Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Departments of Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, 15219, Pennsylvania, USA

    David W. Crippen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sprung, C.L. (2013). Third Critique of Buchman and Chalfin’s Analysis. In: Crippen, D. (eds) ICU Resource Allocation in the New Millennium. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3866-3_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3866-3_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3865-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3866-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation