<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/">
  <channel>
    <title>JAMA Internal Medicine: Law/Legislation Topic Collection</title>
    <link>http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/</link>
    <description>
    </description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 16:46:08 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>Silverchair</generator>
    <managingEditor>editor@archinte.jamanetwork.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>webmaster@archinte.jamanetwork.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <title>When Previously Expressed Wishes Conflict With Best Interests Patient's Advance Directives vs Best Interests </title>
      <link>http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1691766</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Smith AK, Lo B, Sudore R. </author>
      <description>&lt;span class="paragraphSection"&gt;Rising use of advance directives has made surrogate decision making both easier and harder. In many cases, these directives help guide decision making for patients who have lost decision-making capacity. In some cases, however, directives may conflict with what physicians or surrogates view as what is in the patient's best interest. These conflicts can place substantial emotional and moral burdens on physicians and surrogates, and there is little practical guidance for how to address them. We propose a 5-question framework for untangling the conflict between advance directives and best interests of a patient with a surrogate decision maker: (1) Is the clinical situation an emergency? (2) In view of the patient's values and goals, how likely is it that the benefits of the intervention will outweigh the burdens? (3) How well does the advance directive fit the situation at hand? (4) How much leeway did the patient provide the surrogate for overriding the advance directive? (5) How well does the surrogate represent the patient's best interests? We use 2 clinical cases with contrasting outcomes to demonstrate how this framework can help resolve common dilemmas.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
      <prism:startingPage xmlns:prism="prism">1</prism:startingPage>
      <prism:endingPage xmlns:prism="prism">5</prism:endingPage>
      <prism:doi xmlns:prism="prism">10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6053</prism:doi>
      <guid>http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1691766</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Defensive Medicine—Legally Necessary but Ethically Wrong? Inpatient Stress Testing for Chest Pain in Low-Risk Patients  Defensive Medicine—Necessary but Ethically Wrong? </title>
      <link>http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1689996</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Kachalia A, Mello MM. </author>
      <description>&lt;span class="paragraphSection"&gt;Ms Perry is a 58-year-old woman who presents to the emergency department with nonexertional substernal chest pain. She has no shortness of breath or other worrisome symptoms. The pain has been intermittent over several years, and last year, findings of treadmill stress testing for the identical symptoms were negative for ischemia.&lt;/span&gt;</description>
      <prism:startingPage xmlns:prism="prism">1</prism:startingPage>
      <prism:endingPage xmlns:prism="prism">3</prism:endingPage>
      <prism:doi xmlns:prism="prism">10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.7293</prism:doi>
      <guid>http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1689996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>