Do you think that research and treatment aimed at improving physical impairments send a message that living a life with impairments that are visible to others is less desirable than living a life without those impairments?
Consider this: A person incurs severe injuries that will impair him or her for life, e.g., burns over much of the body, loss of limbs, spinal cord injury. The person is an adult, conscious, and on a ventilator. After two weeks and many difficult conversations with physicians and family about his or her prognosis, the patient expresses the wish to be taken off the ventilator and allowed to die. The patient is judged to have decision-making capacity and has not changed his or her mind about dying over time. Which of the following do you think is the more ethically justifiable way to proceed?
From an AMA Journal of Ethics Special Contributor
From the Editor
Assessing Competency in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency: the ACGME Milestones Initiative
In the Literature
State of the Art and Science
Ethics in Rehabilitation: Access to Prosthetics and Quality Care Following Amputation
Medicine and Society
History of Medicine
Images of Healing and Learning
Suggested Readings and Resources
© 2015 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. ISSN 2376-6980