This book examines the many ethical issues that are encountered in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). It supports pediatricians, nurses, residents, and other providers in their daily management of critically ill children with the dilemmas that arise. It begins by examining the evolution of pediatric critical care, and who is now impacted by this advancing medical technology. Subsequent chapters explore specific ethical concerns and controversies that are commonly encountered. These topics include how to conduct end-of-life discussions with families facing a myriad of challenging choices. It goes on to explore the concept of futility, and what that does and does not mean in the pediatric ICU setting. Controversial subjects such as children as organ donors, particularly using donation after cardiac death, in addition to issues surrounding the declaration of brain death are covered. Additional chapters address resource allocation, and also analyze the use of long-term technology in chronically critically ill children. Chapters include case examples with guidance on how to work through similar difficulties and decision-making. While this book is specifically targeted for care providers at the ICU bedside, it is also of benefit to medical students, students in bioethics, practicing ethical consultants and families who are dealing with critically ill children.

Does one need to be a doctor to deliver a baby, or to Should only doctors perform physical examinations, or administer anesthesia, or determine when a patient should be discharged from the hospital? These provocative questions strike at the very heart of what it means to be a doctor. Do We Still Need Doctors? offers an incisive look at the doctor's shifting roles and responsibilities in our rapidly changing health care system.
In addition to compelling firsthand accounts from his own medical practice, Lantos covers issues ranging from the growing emphasis on technology as healer and the physicians new role in the team-oriented health care system to the economic forces governing medicine and the limits of moral responsibility for patient care.

eBook available with sample pages: 0203904850

Does one need to be a doctor to deliver a baby, or to determine which types of lenses best correct myopic vision? Should only doctors perform physical examinations, or administer anesthesia, or determine when a patient should be discharged from the hospital? These provocative questions strike at the very heart of what it means to be a doctor. Do We Still Need Doctors? offers an incisive look at the doctor's shifting roles and responsibilities in our rapidly changing health care system. Exploring such issues as the structure of medical education, the corporatization of health care, and the increasing constraints upon the private doctor/patient relationship, John Lantos reveals how changes in our health care system are engendering new ways of understanding and responding to illness.
In addition to compelling firsthand accounts from his own medical practice, Lantos covers issues ranging from the growing emphasis on technology as healer and the physicians new role in the team-oriented health care system to the economic forces governing medicine and the limits of moral responsibility for patient care.
IDo We Still Need Doctors? probes the factors transforming the roles of doctors and health care institutions as well as our own understanding of health and healing.

In Kidney to Share, Martha Gershun tells the story of her decision to donate a kidney to a stranger. She takes readers through the complex process by which such donors are vetted to ensure that they are physically and psychologically fit to take the risk of a major operation. John D. Lantos, a physician and bioethicist, places Gershun's story in the larger context of the history of kidney transplantation and the ethical controversies that surround living donors. Together, they help readers understand the discoveries that made transplantation relatively safe and effective as well as the legal, ethical, and economic policies that make it feasible. Gershun and Lantos explore the steps involved in recovering and allocating organs. They analyze the differences that arise depending on whether the organ comes from a living donor or one who has died. They observe the expertise-and the shortcomings-of doctors, nurses, and other professionals and describe the burdens that we place on people who are willing to donate. In this raw and vivid book, Gershun and Lantos ask us to consider just how far society should go in using one person's healthy body parts in order to save another person. Kidney to Share provides an account of organ donation that is both personal and analytical. The combination of perspectives leads to a profound and compelling exploration of a largely opaque practice. Gershun and Lantos pull back the curtain to offer readers a more transparent view of the fascinating world of organ donation.

In this new, startlingly original book, John D. Lantos weaves a compelling story that captures the dilemmas of modern medical practice. The Lazarus Case: Life-and-Death Issues in Neonatal Intensive Care begins with a fictional malpractice case-an amalgam of typical cases in which Lantos appeared as an expert witness-and uses it as the framework for addressing the ethical issues surrounding neonatal intensive care. Lantos draws on his experience in neonatal medicine, pediatrics, and medical ethics to explore multiple ethical dilemmas through one poignant representative situation. In Lantos's model case, a doctor decides to stop resuscitation of a premature infant, a tiny "preemie" who seems past reasonable care. The baby survives with severe neurological defects and the parents sue the doctor, alleging that stopping treatment was negligent. From this case, Lantos considers our moral obligations to critically ill babies, the meaning of negligence, and the sorts of social structures that shape the moral consciences of doctors. Each chapter begins with Lantos deposing in the conference room of the plaintiffs' lawyers. The questions put to Lantos throughout the deposition spark an engrossing retelling of his personal experiences with premature babies, as well as his thoughtful discussions of ethics, morality, history, and medical statistics. Sprinkled throughout the book are references to fictional works by Camus, Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Twain, and others. Lantos uses these literary examples to further illustrate the ambiguities, misunderstandings, responsibilities, and evasions that plague our decisions regarding life and death, medical care and medical education, and ultimately the cost and value of preserving the lives of the most vulnerable among us.

Patients today are more empowered and knowledgeable than they have ever been. By law, they must be told about the risks and benefits of proposed treatments and give informed consent before treatment is initiated. Through the democratization of medical information, they have access to peer-reviewed medical journals. Social media allows patients to share stories with others and to learn about other people's experiences with various treatments. There are websites written by experts at leading medical schools to help patients understand diseases and treatments. They have the right to see their medical records. The net result of all changes is a shift in the power balance between doctors and patients. Ideally, as a result of these shifts, the patients' values and preferences should guide treatment decisions. However, this proliferation of information often leads to confusion rather than clarity. Publicly available information often includes seemingly contradictory conclusions and recommendations. Patients don't know which opinions to trust. So, although patients have more information than ever, and many want to make decisions for themselves, they need more guidance than ever to help them process an avalanche of information. This volume aims to help both medical professionals and their patients navigate the evolving healthcare landscape by analyzing the process of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical medicine. The concept of SDM has emerged in the last two decades as a middle ground between, on the one hand, old-fashinioned physician paternalism of the "doctor-knows-best" variety and, on the other hand, unfettered patient autonomy by which patients are thought capable of individually and independently choosing their own medical interventions. Advocates of SDM imagine that decisions will be made best if they follow a complex discussion and negotiation between doctor and patient; such discussions should incorporate the doctor's medical and technical expertise as well as the patient's goals, values, and preferences. SDM takes different forms for different patients in different clinical circumstances. This volume gathers experts in SDM to share their insights about how it ought to be done. The authors include clinicians, social scientist, and philosophers, all of whom have thought about or cared for patients from a variety of backgrounds and in a variety of clinical circumstances. The papers explore the complexity of SDM and offer practical guidance, gained from years of experience, about how to employ SDM as effectively as possible.

Neonatal intensive care has been one of the most morally controversial areas of medicine during the past thirty years. This study examines the interconnected development of four key aspects of neonatal intensive care: medical advances, ethical analysis, legal scrutiny, and econometric evaluation.

The authors assert that a dramatic shift in societal attitudes toward newborns and their medical care was a stimulus for and then a result of developments in the medical care of newborns. They divide their analysis into three eras of neonatal intensive care. The first, characterized by the rapid advance of medical technology from the late 1960s to the Baby Doe case of 1982, established neonatal care as a legitimate specialty of medical care, separate from the rest of pediatrics and medicine. During this era, legal scholars and moral philosophers debated the relative importance of parental autonomy, clinical prognosis, and children's rights.

The second era, beginning with the Baby Doe case (a legal battle that spurred legislation mandating that infants with debilitating birth defects be treated unless the attending physician deems efforts to prolong life "futile"), stimulated efforts to establish a consistent federal standard on neonatal care decisions and raised important moral questions concerning the meaning of "futility" and of "inhumane" treatment. In the third era, a consistent set of decision-making criteria and policies was established. These policies were the result of the synergy and harmonization of newly agreed upon ethical principles and newly discovered epidemiological characteristics of neonatal care.

Tracing the field's recent history, notable advances, and considerable challenges yet to be faced, the authors present neonatal bioethics as a paradigm of complex conversation among physicians, philosophers, policy makers, judges, and legislators which has led to responsible societal oversight of a controversial medical innovation.

Neonatal intensive care has been one of the most morally controversial areas of medicine during the past thirty years. This study examines the interconnected development of four key aspects of neonatal intensive care: medical advances, ethical analysis, legal scrutiny, and econometric evaluation. The authors assert that a dramatic shift in societal attitudes toward newborns and their medical care was a stimulus for and then a result of developments in the medical care of newborns. They divide their analysis into three eras of neonatal intensive care. The first, characterized by the rapid advance of medical technology from the late 1960s to the Baby Doe case of 1982, established neonatal care as a legitimate specialty of medical care, separate from the rest of pediatrics and medicine. During this era, legal scholars and moral philosophers debated the relative importance of parental autonomy, clinical prognosis, and children's rights. The second era, beginning with the Baby Doe case (a legal battle that spurred legislation mandating that infants with debilitating birth defects be treated unless the attending physician deems efforts to prolong life "futile"), stimulated efforts to establish a consistent federal standard on neonatal care decisions and raised important moral questions concerning the meaning of "futility" and of "inhumane" treatment. In the third era, a consistent set of decision-making criteria and policies was established. These policies were the result of the synergy and harmonization of newly agreed upon ethical principles and newly discovered epidemiological characteristics of neonatal care. Tracing the field's recent history, notable advances, and considerable challenges yet to be faced, the authors present neonatal bioethics as a paradigm of complex conversation among physicians, philosophers, policy makers, judges, and legislators which has led to responsible societal oversight of a controversial medical innovation.