This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • On My Mind  • Medical Ethics  • Patient-Physician Communication  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:8-9.

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

We have reached an impasse. Through the westward-facing window of the hospital room, a shaft of late afternoon sunlight illuminates the space between me and the parents of the child lying in the bed. The air, teeming with the tiny flotsam that usually goes unnoticed, appears agitated and alive. We have been discussing what the best therapeutic course of action is for this young patient; we have shared information and considered the pros and cons at length; we understand each other’s views and have conducted our dialogue with great respect. But we clearly, and perhaps irrevocably, disagree.

Perhaps we diverge regarding whether invasive life-extending interventions are still in the child’s best interest, whether to give a blood transfusion or withhold it for religious reasons, whether to use a complementary-alternative approach in lieu of a standard allopathic remedy, whether to perform a particular diagnostic test, or whether to administer a specific . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Chris Feudtner, MD, PhD, MPH