Persistent Vegetative State and the Right to Die: The United States and Britain
BMJ (British Medical Journal). 1991 May 25; 302(6787): 1256-1258.
...In Britain there has been little public discussion of the issue of withdrawing treatment from patients in a persistent vegetative state. Few would like to see the courts interfering in what most regard as clinical decisions, a view shared by most doctors and many judges in the United States. Legislative backing for living wills and enduring powers of attorney for medical decisions might be helpful but would provide only for the minority of people who had chosen to make advance directives. The recent report from the Institute of Medical Ethics aims at promoting wider discussion between the public and medical professional bodies on whether the withdrawal of nutritional support is an appropriate way of dealing with patients in a persistent vegetative state. Guidelines might be evolved as a safeguard, indicating the conditions under which a decision to withdraw nutritional support would be appropriate and who should share in it.
Advance Directives; Allowing to Die; Artificial Feeding; Consent; Doctors; Ethics; Family Members; Futility; Guidelines; Health; International Aspects; Judicial Action; Legal Aspects; Living Wills; Medical Ethics; Mortality; Organizational Policies; Organizations; Patients; Persistent Vegetative State; Physicians; Professional Organizations; Prognosis; Right to Die; Supreme Court Decisions; Third Party Consent; Treatment Refusal; Wills;
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.