Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:34:09.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two responses to “Physician Refusal of Requests for Futile or Ineffective Interventions,” by John J. Paris and Frank E. Reardon (CQ Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 127–134)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2009

Jurrit Bergsma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries and Dialogue
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , Summer 1992 , pp. 239 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Paris, JJ, Reardon, FE.Physician refusal of requests for futile or ineffective interventions. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1992;1:127–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Bergsma, J.Towards a concept of shared autonomy. Theoretical Medicine 1984;5:325–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Van der, Berg JH.Medische Macht en Medische Ethiek [Medical Power and Medical Ethics.] Nijkerk, The Netherlands: Callenbuch, 1965.Google Scholar

4. Rosenthal, E.New rules for saving the dying are being misused, doctors say. New york Times 1990 10. 4:B20.Google Scholar

5. See note 1. Paris, Reardon.Google Scholar

6. See note 1.Google Scholar

7. See note 1.Google Scholar

8. See note 1.Google Scholar

9. See note 1.Google Scholar