Article info
PDFElective ventilation
Current Controversy
Dignifying death and the morality of elective ventilation
- Correspondence to Dr Pablo De Lora, Department of Public Law and Legal Philosophy, Law School, Calle Kelsen s/n, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid 28049, Spain; pablo.delora{at}uam.es
Citation
Dignifying death and the morality of elective ventilation
Publication history
- Received August 1, 2012
- Revised November 24, 2012
- Accepted November 29, 2012
- First published January 8, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Elective non-therapeutic intensive care and the four principles of medical ethics
- Elective ventilation and the politics of death
- Ventilating the debate: elective ventilation revisited
- Elective ventilation for organ donation: law, policy and public ethics
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Non-heart beating organ donation: old procurement strategy—new ethical problems
- Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: family experiences
- Honouring the donor: in death and in life
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32