Show simple item record

dc.creatorRouse, Fenellaen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T18:34:04Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T18:34:04Zen
dc.date.created1991en
dc.date.issued1991en
dc.identifier10.1111/jlme.1991.19.issue-1-2en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationLaw, Medicine and Health Care. 1991 Spring-Summer; 19(1-2): 83-90.en
dc.identifier.issn0277-8459en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=The+Role+of+State+Legislatures+after+Cruzan:+What+Can+and+Should+State+Legislatures+Do?&title=Law,+Medicine+and+Health+Care.++&volume=19&issue=1-2&pages=83-90&date=1991&au=Rouse,+Fenellaen
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jlme.1991.19.issue-1-2en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/736967en
dc.description.abstract...The Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act and the Massachusetts Health Care Proxy statute are the best examples of existing legislative responses providing a method for exercising the right to refuse unwanted life-sustaining medical treatment. A comprehensive statute, providing for a proxy appointment, for personal written instruction and validating decision-making by families and close friends in the absence of written appointments or instructions would combine the best of the two. Such a statute would permit an agent's authority, written instructions or surrogate's authority to become effective upon determination of the patient's lack of decision-making capacity in health care matters. The statute would contain no other limitations on the powers. Such a model is currently in process of being drafted. Legislatures should be considering these options. Also of importance is legislative and national debate on the treatment to be given to permanently unconscious patients whose personal wishes are not or cannot be known. Clear practice guidelines in this area would avoid inclusion of hidden values in decision-making for permanently unconscious patients.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:KIE/34892en
dc.subjectAdvance Directivesen
dc.subjectAllowing to Dieen
dc.subjectArtificial Feedingen
dc.subjectCompetenceen
dc.subjectConsenten
dc.subjectDecision Makingen
dc.subjectFamily Membersen
dc.subjectFriendsen
dc.subjectGovernmenten
dc.subjectGovernment Regulationen
dc.subjectGuidelinesen
dc.subjectGuardiansen
dc.subjectHealthen
dc.subjectHealth Careen
dc.subjectLegal Aspectsen
dc.subjectLegal Guardiansen
dc.subjectLegislationen
dc.subjectLifeen
dc.subjectLiving Willsen
dc.subjectModel Legislationen
dc.subjectPatientsen
dc.subjectPersistent Vegetative Stateen
dc.subjectPractice Guidelinesen
dc.subjectProxyen
dc.subjectPublic Policyen
dc.subjectRegulationen
dc.subjectRight to Dieen
dc.subjectRightsen
dc.subjectRisks and Benefitsen
dc.subjectStandardsen
dc.subjectState Governmenten
dc.subjectTerminally Illen
dc.subjectThird Party Consenten
dc.subjectTreatment Refusalen
dc.subjectValuesen
dc.subjectWithholding Treatmenten
dc.subjectWillsen
dc.titleThe Role of State Legislatures After Cruzan: What Can -- and Should -- State Legislatures Do?en
dc.provenanceDigital citation created by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University for the BIOETHICSLINE database, part of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics' Bioethics Information Retrieval Project funded by the United States National Library of Medicine.en
dc.provenanceDigital citation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named NBIO hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection BioethicsLine hosted by Georgetown University.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2019 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885