This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Peter D. Mott, MD
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry Rochester, NY

JAMA. 1986;256(8):1000.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

In their recent article, Charlson et al¹ conclude that there has been too much emphasis in recent years on discussing with all patients how aggressive they want their care to be in the event of life-threatening illness. Such an effort is unrealistic, they state, and should perhaps be reserved for those patients showing a "steady deterioration" or "when death is imminent." The basis for this was the finding that mortality and morbidity rates were not significantly affected by the physicians' preference regarding aggressiveness of care.

The literature has been deluged with articles advocating the opposite course. Indeed, there is a developing movement—both popular and professional—supporting the patient's right to know and decide issues of life and death. Court cases increasingly back such individual rights. Because it flies in the face of such overwhelming sentiment, the Cornell article would assume great importance if the study it reports . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?