In Kevin Keith’s article “Doctor’s Should Stop Treatment That Is Futile”, he claims that, regardless of difficulty, ending the treatment for those who wouldn’t benefit is the best thing to do. He uses pathos and logos, in the argumentative format, to give a detailed explanation of his claims to the guardians of patients and the medical community in a way that is both compassionate and insistent.
Keith invokes an emotional response in the reader to open their minds to his reasoning, such as when he expresses that “The obvious advisability of this [aggressive care] in many hopeless cases was handled informally by hospital staff who agreed. Without consulting with the patients, that certain patients would be ‘allowed’ to slip away” (para. 2). This statement forces the reader to feel that they have no choice about aggressive care anyway, that is pointless to try because the decision was already made for them. Unfortunately, he also points out that”... in practice, most hospitals and nursing homes have tried not to refuse care in those circumstances because it leads …show more content…
He expounds upon what the term ‘dead’ legally means;”...patients may not be literally ‘brain dead’ because ‘death’ is a legal concept; not all states accept loss of brain function as a criterion for death,... those that do , all consider a patient ‘alive’ who has any brain function” (para 4). In this, he clarifies that the loss of brain function doesn't necessarily mean that someone is dead, but may count if the person has absolutely no brain function. When Keith elaborates on the reasons why futile care cases shouldn’t persist, he defines medical futility as “Case in which a given treatment cannot produce any benefit” (para 6). In this portion of the article, he goes on to illustrate his reasoning behind ending the futile case by describing what medical futility is, he clearly states the facts he is using as a basis for his
Keith invokes an emotional response in the reader to open their minds to his reasoning, such as when he expresses that “The obvious advisability of this [aggressive care] in many hopeless cases was handled informally by hospital staff who agreed. Without consulting with the patients, that certain patients would be ‘allowed’ to slip away” (para. 2). This statement forces the reader to feel that they have no choice about aggressive care anyway, that is pointless to try because the decision was already made for them. Unfortunately, he also points out that”... in practice, most hospitals and nursing homes have tried not to refuse care in those circumstances because it leads …show more content…
He expounds upon what the term ‘dead’ legally means;”...patients may not be literally ‘brain dead’ because ‘death’ is a legal concept; not all states accept loss of brain function as a criterion for death,... those that do , all consider a patient ‘alive’ who has any brain function” (para 4). In this, he clarifies that the loss of brain function doesn't necessarily mean that someone is dead, but may count if the person has absolutely no brain function. When Keith elaborates on the reasons why futile care cases shouldn’t persist, he defines medical futility as “Case in which a given treatment cannot produce any benefit” (para 6). In this portion of the article, he goes on to illustrate his reasoning behind ending the futile case by describing what medical futility is, he clearly states the facts he is using as a basis for his