A defence of the requirement to seek consent to withhold and withdraw futile treatments

Cameron L Stewart
Med J Aust 2012; 196 (6): 406-408. || doi: 10.5694/mja11.10824
  • Cameron L Stewart

  • Centre for Health Governance, Law and Ethics, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. Lawrence S, Willmott L, Milligan E, et al. Autonomy versus futility? Barriers to good clinical practice in end-of-life care: a Queensland case. Med J Aust 2012; 196: 404-405.
  • 2. Kerridge I, Mitchell K, McPhee J. Defining medical futility in ethics, law and clinical practice: an exercise in futility? J Law Med 1997; 4: 235-242.
  • 3. Stewart C. Futility determination as a process: problems with medical sovereignty, legal issues and the strengths and weakness of the procedural approach. J Bioeth Inq 2011; 8: 155-163.
  • 4. Dzielak RJ. Physicians lose the tug of war to pull the plug: the debate about continued futile medical care. J Marshall L Rev 1995; 28: 733.
  • 5. Callahan D. Medical futility, medical necessity. The-problem-without-a-name. Hastings Cent Rep 1991; 21: 30-35.
  • 6. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR. Medical futility: its meaning and ethical implications. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 949-954.
  • 7. Wilkinson DJ, Savulescu J. Knowing when to stop: futility in the ICU. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2011; 24: 160-165. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e328343c5af.
  • 8. Truog RD. Counterpoint: The Texas advance directives act is ethically flawed: medical futility disputes must be resolved by a fair process. Chest 2009; 136: 968-971.
  • 9. Skene L. The Schiavo and Korp cases: conceptualising end-of-life decision-making. J Law Med 2005; 13: 223-229.
  • 10. Skene L. Withholding and withdrawing treatment in South Australia when patients, parents or guardians insist that treatment must be continued. Adelaide Law Rev 2003; 24: 161-185. (accessed Feb 2012).
  • 11. Skene L, Smallwood R. Informed consent: lessons from Australia. BMJ 2002; 324: 39-41.
  • 12. Stewart CL. Law and cancer at the end of life: the problem of nomoigenic harms and the five desiderata of death law. Public Health 2011; 125: 905-918. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.10.001.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.