Applying best interests to persistent vegetative state--a principled distortion?
نویسنده
چکیده
"Best interests" is widely accepted as the appropriate foundation principle for medico-legal decisions concerning treatment withdrawal from patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS). Its application appears to progress logically from earlier use regarding legally incompetent patients. This author argues, however, that such confidence in the relevance of the principle of best interests to PVS is misplaced, and that current construction in this context is questionable on four specific grounds. Furthermore, it is argued that the resulting legal inconsistency is distorting both the principle itself and, more particularly, individual patient interests.
منابع مشابه
Best interests in persistent vegetative state.
Letters Best interests in persistent vegetative state SIR While I agree with several points raised in your recent editorial' on my paper, Applying best interests to persistent vegetative state-a principled distortion?,2 I must respond to a number of other issues which you raise. I agree unreservedly with your caveat that both doctors and judges must act within the law. My paper, however, sought...
متن کاملPersistent vegetative state, withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration, and the patient's "best interests".
Editorial Persistent vegetative state, withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration, and the patient's "best interests" In this issue of the journal Anthea Fenwick, an Edinburgh University graduate law student, robustly challenges the use of "best interests" by English judges in the context of permitting withdrawal of life-supporting nutrition and hydra-tion from patients in persistent vege...
متن کاملCourt applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: family experiences.
Withdrawal of artificially delivered nutrition and hydration (ANH) from patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) requires judicial approval in England and Wales, even when families and healthcare professionals agree that withdrawal is in the patient's best interests. Part of the rationale underpinning the original recommendation for such court approval was the reassurance of patients' fam...
متن کاملMoving on from bland: the evolution of the law and minimally conscious patients.
The decision in Bland centred on the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Since then, a new medical condition has emerged, known as a minimally conscious state (MCS). In W v M, the Court of Protection was asked to authorise the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a MCS. Baker J refused to grant the...
متن کاملCan ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
In this paper, I explore under what circumstances it might be morally acceptable to transplant organs from a patient lacking capacity. I argue, with a developed hypothetical based around a mother and son, that (1) 'Best interests' should be interpreted broadly to include the interests that people have previously expressed in the well-being of others. It could, therefore, be in the 'best interes...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Journal of medical ethics
دوره 24 2 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1998