What does “futility” mean? An empirical study of doctors’ perceptions

Objective(s) To describe how doctors define and use the terms “futility” and “futile treatment” in end-of-life care. Design, Setting, Participants A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 96 doctors across a range of specialties who treat adults at the end of life. Doctors were recruited from three large Australian teaching hospitals and were interviewed from May to July 2013. Results Doctors’ conceptions of futility focused on the quality and chance of patient benefit. Aspects of benefit included physiological effect, weighing benefits and burdens, and quantity and quality of life. Quality and length of life were linked, but many doctors discussed instances when benefit was determined by quality of life alone. Most doctors described the assessment of chance of success in achieving patient benefit as a subjective exercise. Despite a broad conceptual consensus about what futility means, doctors noted variability in how the concept was applied in clinical decision-making. Over half the doctors also identified treatment that is futile but nevertheless justified, such as short-term treatment as part of supporting the family of a dying person. Conclusions There is an overwhelming preference for a qualitative approach to assessing futility, which brings with it variation in clinical decision-making. “Patient benefit” is at the heart of doctors’ definitions of futility. Determining patient benefit requires discussions with patients and families about their values and goals as well as the burdens and benefits of further treatment.

Investigating the effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on postoperative pain intensity in adolescents undergoing surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Aim To investigate the efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for postoperative pain management in adolescents. Background Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing is an inexpensive, non-pharmacological intervention that has successfully been used to treat chronic pain. It holds promise in the treatment of acute, postsurgical pain based on its purported effects on the brain and nervous system. Design A randomized controlled trial was used. Methods Fifty-six adolescent surgical patients aged between 12-18 years were allocated to gender-balanced Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (treatment) or non-Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (control) groups. Pain was measured using the Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale (WBFS) before and after the intervention (or non-intervention for the control group). Findings A Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated that the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing group experienced a significant reduction in pain intensity after treatment intervention, whereas the control group did not. Additionally, a Mann–Whitney U-test showed that, while there was no significant difference between the two groups at time 1, there was a significant difference in pain intensity between the two groups at time 2, with the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing group experiencing lower levels of pain. Conclusion These results suggest that Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing may be an effective treatment modality for postoperative pain.

Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain

By examining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and power within the context of the food supply chain, this paper illustrates how food retailers claim to address food waste while simultaneously setting standards that result in the large-scale rejection of edible food on cosmetic grounds. Specifically, this paper considers the powerful role of food retailers and how they may be considered to be legitimately engaging in socially responsible behaviors to lower food waste, yet implement practices that ultimately contribute to higher levels of food waste elsewhere in the supply chain. Through interviews with key actors in the Australian fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, we highlight the existence of a legitimacy gap in corporate social responsibility whereby undesirable behaviors are pushed elsewhere in the supply chain. It is argued that the structural power held by Australia’s retail duopoly means that supermarkets are able to claim virtuous and responsible behaviors, despite counter claims from within the fresh food industry that the food supermarkets’ private quality standards mean that fresh food is wasted. We argue that the supermarkets claim CSR kudos for reducing food waste at the expense of other supply chain actors who bear both the economic cost and the moral burden of waste, and that this is a consequence of supermarkets’ remarkable market power in Australia.