Bio

Academic Appointments

Contact

Publications

Journal Articles

  • Physician-assisted suicide: Where to draw the line? CAMBRIDGE QUARTERLY OF HEALTHCARE ETHICS Young, E. W. 2000; 9 (3): 407-410

    View details for Web of Science ID 000087317400012

    View details for PubMedID 10858891

  • Changing economics and clinical ethical decisionmaking: A view from the trenches CAMBRIDGE QUARTERLY OF HEALTHCARE ETHICS Young, E. W. 2000; 9 (2): 284-287

    View details for Web of Science ID 000086269500013

    View details for PubMedID 10742869

  • Ethical issues at the end of life. Stanford law & policy review Young, E. W. 1998; 9 (2): 267-288

    View details for PubMedID 16528859

  • Ethics in the outpatient setting: New challenges and opportunities CAMBRIDGE QUARTERLY OF HEALTHCARE ETHICS Young, E. W. 1997; 6 (3): 293-298

    View details for Web of Science ID A1997XM82900006

    View details for PubMedID 9253497

  • Physician-assisted suicide - Overview of the ethical debate - Commentary WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Young, E. W. 1997; 166 (6): 402-406

    View details for Web of Science ID A1997XG75100007

    View details for PubMedID 9217453

  • RATIONING MISSING INGREDIENT IN HEALTH-CARE REFORM WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Young, E. W. 1994; 161 (1): 74-77

    View details for Web of Science ID A1994NY52600020

    View details for PubMedID 7941521

  • Does depression invalidate competence? Consultants' ethical, psychiatric, and legal considerations. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics Young, E. W., CORBY, J. C., Johnson, R. 1993; 2 (4): 505-515

    View details for PubMedID 8149005

  • Ethical aspects of blood transfusion. journal of the Florida Medical Association Young, E. W. 1993; 80 (1): 29-32

    View details for PubMedID 8436929

  • The Patient Self-Determination Act: potential ethical quandaries and benefits. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics Young, E. W., Jex, S. A. 1992; 1 (2): 107-115

    View details for PubMedID 1342338

  • LIMITING TREATMENT FOR EXTREMELY PREMATURE, LOW-BIRTH-WEIGHT INFANTS (500 TO 750-G) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISEASES OF CHILDREN Young, E. W., Stevenson, D. K. 1990; 144 (5): 549-552

    Abstract

    Despite impressive recent advances in neonatology, outcomes for extremely premature, very-low-birth-weight infants (500 to 750 g) remain uneven. In a situation of inherent uncertainty, treating patients vigorously could do violence to the moral principles of nonmaleficence and (distributive) justice. Equally, failing to treat patients vigorously because of concerns about nonmaleficence and (distributive) justice could violate the principle of patient-centered beneficence. Compounding this dilemma is the legacy of the "Baby Doe Regulations." International perspectives on this particular quandary are provided. We assert that at Stanford (Calif) University the "individualized prognostic strategy" rather than the "wait until certainty" approach prevails. Four concluding questions are posed: Why is prevention not encouraged more than after-the-fact heroic intervention? Is it possible to develop a more rational view of stopping aggressive therapy once having started? Can we ignore the finitude of our medical resources? Is there a need to redefine the nature of autonomy?

    View details for Web of Science ID A1990DB96200021

    View details for PubMedID 2330921

  • When critical illness interferes with informed consent. Progress in clinical and biological research Young, E. W. 1989; 299: 235-239

    View details for PubMedID 2657792

Conference Proceedings

  • THE ETHICS OF NONTREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH CANCERS OF THE HEAD AND NECK Young, E. W. AMER MEDICAL ASSOC. 1991: 769-773

    Abstract

    There are three levels at which nontreatment decisions for patients with cancers of the head and neck might be made: not doing further diagnostic procedures when the data gained would not make a significant difference to treatment decisions; not continuing aggressive therapy when its benefits are outweighed by the ensuing burdens and harms; and, at the policy level, not providing costly aggressive therapy at all because of the number of patients with unmet, more basic needs. These three levels of nontreatment decisions are discussed in light of ethical theory, briefly introduced. Arguments are made in favor of nontreatment decisions at the two clinical levels mentioned above, but against a policy decision to ration treatment for patients with cancers of the head and neck.

    View details for Web of Science ID A1991FV56600017

    View details for PubMedID 1907464

Stanford Medicine Resources: