Why are there not more disputes where surrogates demand decompressive craniectomies and ECMO?In many situations these medical interventions could postpone the moment of death. Take the case of Motl Brody, for example. The sect of Orthodox Judaism to which the patient's parents belong apparently requires that patients be maintained on maximum life support until brain death. But then why did they not demand a craniectomy? That might have delayed brain death and prolonged life as long as possible.
Are these far more radical procedures not the subject of futility disputes just because they are so radical? Is the mere visual image of these procedures enough to deter even the most adamant surrogate? Perhaps it does not seem so unusual to demand continued use of ventilators, dialysis, or ANH for the chronically critically ill. After all, these have been regularly used for over three decades.
1 comments:
Thanks for the great blog. I really enjoyed reading it. In fact if I were you I would go to http://www.autosurfmonster.com/ and submit this blog so thousands of others can see it for free. I am not trying to advertise for anyone, I just feel like more people should have the opportunity to see this blog and I also got a lot of free hits from them for my own blogs.. Well, I look forward to all the updates.
Jessica
Post a Comment