Document Detail

Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  24567422     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
In the 2011 landmark case of W v M, the English Court of Protection ruled that it was unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a woman who had been in a minimally conscious state for 8 years. From the perspective of the court, the absence of a written advance directive negated the woman's previous, autonomous interests and, consequently, emphasis was given to her current welfare and well-being. While life itself is a moral good, prolonging life for a person in regular pain with no hope of recovering to a more complete state of awareness simply because that person only verbalized her wishes about her treatment decisions seems to drastically undervalue the principle of autonomy. We refute the notion that it is the role of the court to prolong life insofar as it can and argue that withholding and withdrawing life sustaining technologies from patients in a minimally conscious state can be ethically justified.
Allison Leslie Hebron; Summer McGee
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2014-2-24
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of medical ethics     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1473-4257     ISO Abbreviation:  J Med Ethics     Publication Date:  2014 Feb 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2014-2-25     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7513619     Medline TA:  J Med Ethics     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Toward accommodating physicians' conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure.
Next Document:  Literature as an exploration of the phenomenology of schizophrenia: disorder and recovery in Denis J...