Show simple item record

dc.creatorMiles, Steven H.en
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T18:34:25Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T18:34:25Zen
dc.date.created1991en
dc.date.issued1991en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJournal of Clinical Ethics. 1991 Winter; 2(4): 285-286.en
dc.identifier.issn1046-7890en
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=Legal+Procedures+in&title=Journal+of+Clinical+Ethics.++&volume=2&issue=4&pages=285-286&date=1991&au=Miles,+Steven+H.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/737498en
dc.description.abstractHospital policies...have a very limited role in addressing the substantive issue of authority with regard to nonbeneficial therapies. First, they could not be limited, as Mishkin suggests, to persons in a persistent vegetative state. Nonbeneficial therapies encompass many other scenarios including ineffective cancer chemotherapy or open-heart surgery on profoundly demented persons. Second, I am not convinced that families or patients could be meaningfully informed of the specific relevance of such policies to their care in advance of a dispute. Most importantly, the view that such policies are required as a foundation to withhold nonbeneficial therapy implies that patients otherwise have a new right to command the provision of nonbeneficial therapies....It may well be judicially preferable to ask directly for declarative relief from a duty to provide a treatment, as Mishkin suggests. I am not convinced that such an approach would be "ethically" superior....Third, the novel, declarative approach directly risks a precedent that would affirm the family's right to demand futile therapy....Ultimately, when public policy on this kind of dispute is clearer, a declarative strategy may well be preferable. For now, the Wanglie case has outlined the fundamental issues of this novel legal question and has generated a fruitful discussion of a complex issue in patient care and public policy.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:KIE/36034en
dc.subjectAllowing to Dieen
dc.subjectCanceren
dc.subjectDecision Makingen
dc.subjectFamily Membersen
dc.subjectFutilityen
dc.subjectGuardiansen
dc.subjectHospital Policiesen
dc.subjectInstitutional Policiesen
dc.subjectJudicial Actionen
dc.subjectLegal Aspectsen
dc.subjectLegal Guardiansen
dc.subjectPatient Advocacyen
dc.subjectPatient Careen
dc.subjectPatientsen
dc.subjectPersistent Vegetative Stateen
dc.subjectPhysiciansen
dc.subjectPublic Policyen
dc.subjectSurgeryen
dc.subjectWithholding Treatmenten
dc.titleLegal Procedures in Wanglie: A Two-Step, Not a Sidestepen
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