Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Howe v. MGH and Hudson v. Texas Children's Hospital: two approaches to resolving family–physician disputes in end-of-life care

Journal of Perinatology volume 26, pages 726–729 (2006)Cite this article

Without revisiting the intractable debate over medical ‘futility’,1 we want to examine two recent cases, Howe v. Massachusetts General Hospital2 and Hudson v. Texas Children's Hospital,3 to see how a ‘process-based approach’4 for resolving conflicts between physicians and families on end-of-life care can prove helpful.

The traditional method of resolving irreconcilable disputes in our society is to take the issue to court. American courts, when thrust into physician/family disputes over whether or not to continue life-prolonging interventions, have invariably ruled in favor of a family's plea for continued treatment. Only when, as in Gilgunn v. MGH,5 the patient was deceased before the litigation was instituted has a court upheld a decision to withhold or withdraw potentially life-extending interventions over a family's objection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Truog RD, Brett AS, Frader J . The problem with futility. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 1560–1564.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Howe v. Massachusetts General Hospital, Mass. Probate Suffolk Division No. 03 P 125, 22 March 2005.

  3. Hudson v. Texas Children's Hospital, 2005 WL497818 (Tex, App—Hous. (1 Dist.)).

  4. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Medical futility in end-of-life care. JAMA 1999; 281: 937–941.

  5. Paris JJ, Cassem EH, Dec W, Reardon FE . Use of a DNR order over family objections: the case of Gilgunn v. MGH. J Intensive Care Med 1999; 14: 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Helft PR, Siegler M, Lantos J . The rise and fall of the futility movement. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 293–296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Raffin TA . Perspectives on clinical medical ethics. In: Hall JB, Schmidt GA, Wood LDH (eds). Principles of Critical Care. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1992, pp 2185–2204.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Veatch RM, Spicer CM . Medically futile care: the role of the physician in setting limits. Am J Law Med 1992; 18: 15–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Paris JJ, Crone R, Reardon FE . Physician refusal or requested treatment: the case of Baby L. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1012–1014.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kowalczyk L . Plan to take woman off life support is halted. Boston Globe. 23 February, 2005; A1.

  11. Kowalczyk L . Women dies at MGH after battle over care. Boston Globe. 8 June 2005; A1.

  12. Kowalczyk L . Hospital, family span over end-of-life care. Boston Globe. 11 March 2005; A1.

  13. Hopper L . Ruling keeps baby on life-support. Houston Chronicle, 26 January 2005; A1.

  14. Nichols B . Hospital ends life support of baby: 1st case of its kind is against mom's wish, in accordance with law. Dallas Morning News, March 2005; A1.

  15. Texas Health and Safety Code § 166.046(a) (Vernon Supp 2002).

  16. Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2990 (2005).

  17. Md. Health-Gen. Code Ann. § 5-611 (2005).

  18. California Probate Code § 4736 (West. 2000).

  19. Fine RL, Mayo TW . Resolution of futility by due process: early experience with The Texas Advance Directives Act. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 743–746 at 744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hopper L . Judge ruled infant can be pulled from life support. Houston Chronicle, 16 February 2005; A1.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

    J J Paris

  2. The Palliative Care Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston,, MA, USA

    J A Billinngs

  3. Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    B Cummings

  4. Villanova Law School, Villanova, PA, USA

    M P Moreland

Authors
  1. J J Paris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J A Billinngs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M P Moreland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J J Paris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paris, J., Billinngs, J., Cummings, B. et al. Howe v. MGH and Hudson v. Texas Children's Hospital: two approaches to resolving family–physician disputes in end-of-life care. J Perinatol 26, 726–729 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211591

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211591

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links