Talk:Futile medical care

Style and NPOV
I don't think this article meets Wikipedia standards for style or NPOV. 63.243.110.154 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, I agree. Xorgthezombie (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too - it reads like a pamphlet advertising ways for NHS doctors to avoid bed blocking elderly and disabled patients to me - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaswilliamlofthouse (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * me too. it's too anti-baby k, etc. comparing such healthcare to luxury goods! and it's 4 years later.. --187.40.164.208 (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant NPOV removed
I removed the following:

The constant use of the word 'elderly' by healthcare providers that it is automatically associated with being incompetent or unworthy of effort - it also assumes that they do not value their existence as much as younger individuals. This attitude is currently being used in the NHS in England to refuse curative cancer treatments on anyone over 65 to save money - the same arguments are made against treating the disabled, and renders the NHS guilty of the same repugnant malpractice as Hitlers' T4 group.

This NPOV violation is about as obvious as it gets. I can already counter this by saying that elderly people are less likely to survive than young people with the same condition. This may make refusing the treatment to elderly the right decision while treating a young person also a right decision. This was the case of my grandfather, who possibly could have been saved has he been much younger.

71.212.9.95 (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a single reference to support the sweeping statement 'I can counter this by saying that elderly people are less likely to survive than young people with the same condition'. What conditions are you referring to? Age is NOT a relevant parameter, 'Performance Status' is - a 'young' patient with a heart condition is less likely to survive any rigorous treatment than a fit 80 year old - your ignorance is so complete, I must assume you are not in the profession, just an ill-informed, Ageist bigot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.85.35 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed commentary and replaced with cn tag
Removed the following:

"(Can you cite any evidence base for this? If they have been 'proven', the NHS/NICE or SIGN would be using them to save themselves a great deal of money. There is no clinical algorithm in existence that is sufficiently predictive for the NHS to sanction its use as an assessment tool with which to deny access to (eg) ICU that includes 'Age' as a relevant factor - please use some more meaningful example of 'futility', eg a brain dead person on full life support for 29 years requiring a heart lung transplant)."

Here is the diff  R mosler  | ●   08:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reads like an essay, few WP:RSs
This article, especially the introduction, reads like an essay and has almost no WP:RSs. Really, Medscape and Huntington Post are pretty poor sources. There's a huge literature of books and articles on this subject, in major journals like JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, etc. --Nbauman (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Questioning wording on first paragraph
The article gives "a doctor operating on a terminal cancer patient" as an example of futile care, but I don't think it's a good one, because it isn't "treatment that has not been shown to provide a measurable benefit". Removing some of the tumor can give them more time, reduce their pain, and alleviate some cancer symptoms. In some case it can't do any of those things, and then it is futile; but it's not always that way. I've modified the statement a bit, but I think there ought to be some other example there--something that's always futile care rather than only some of the time. I'd list the attempt to resuscitate someone who has suffered unsurvivable injuries as an example, but that's a bit more in the area of emergency medicine than hospital ethics... 65.185.155.121 (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)