Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Research ArticleConference Proceedings

When Caring for Critically Ill Patients, Do Clinicians Have a Responsibility to Be Innovative and Try Unproven Approaches When Accepted Approaches Are Failing?

Bruce K Rubin and Kenneth P Steinberg
Respiratory Care April 2007, 52 (4) 408-415;
Bruce K Rubin
Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina.
MEngr MD MBA FAARC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Kenneth P Steinberg
Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

As the first paper in this Journal Conference on intensive care unit controversies, the editors wished us to set the tone for the debate by discussing the ethics of medical “adventurism” in the intensive care unit. More life-or-death decisions are made in the intensive care unit than elsewhere in the hospital, and the critical care specialist often sees himself or herself as a warrior in a battle with death. This adrenaline-charged calling attracts highly intelligent, hard-working, and compassionate caregivers, as well as fiercely independent clinicians. The result of this is that critical care specialists passionately debate about the meaning and application of published “evidence” and this leads to thoughtful debate, as exemplified by the papers in this and the next issue of Respiratory Care, as well as thoughtless and often dangerous disregard for evidence-based medicine. Physicians are morally obligated to provide the best and most appropriate care possible for their patients, but when accepted approaches are failing and a critically ill patient is getting worse, the critical care physician must make a decision regarding innovative therapy, based on the patient's prognosis, the available evidence, the resources on hand, the expertise of the physicians, and the values of the patient and the physician. This decision may lead, at times, to trying unproven and innovative strategies to achieve a clinical goal. In such cases, it is to be hoped that this can be done in such a way that data are formally and prospectively collected to increase our knowledge.

  • ethics
  • adventurism
  • Food and Drug Administration
  • FDA
  • patient safety
  • clinical research
  • investigational drugs
  • evidence-based medicine
  • clinical trials

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Bruce K Rubin MEngr MD MBA FAARC, Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem NC 27157–1081. E-mail: brubin{at}wfubmc.edu.
  • Bruce K Rubin MEngr MD MBA FAARC and Kenneth P Steinberg MD presented a version of this paper at the 38th RESPIRATORY CARE Journal Conference, “Respiratory Controversies in the Critical Care Setting,” held October 6–8, 2006, in Banff, Alberta, Canada.

  • Copyright © 2007 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 52 (4)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 52, Issue 4
1 Apr 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
When Caring for Critically Ill Patients, Do Clinicians Have a Responsibility to Be Innovative and Try Unproven Approaches When Accepted Approaches Are Failing?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
When Caring for Critically Ill Patients, Do Clinicians Have a Responsibility to Be Innovative and Try Unproven Approaches When Accepted Approaches Are Failing?
Bruce K Rubin, Kenneth P Steinberg
Respiratory Care Apr 2007, 52 (4) 408-415;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
When Caring for Critically Ill Patients, Do Clinicians Have a Responsibility to Be Innovative and Try Unproven Approaches When Accepted Approaches Are Failing?
Bruce K Rubin, Kenneth P Steinberg
Respiratory Care Apr 2007, 52 (4) 408-415;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • ethics
  • adventurism
  • Food and Drug Administration
  • FDA
  • patient safety
  • clinical research
  • investigational drugs
  • evidence-based medicine
  • clinical trials

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire