Article Text
Abstract
The recent ruling from England on the case of M is one of very few worldwide to consider whether life-sustaining treatment, in the form of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, should continue to be provided to a patient in a minimally conscious state. Formally concerned with the English law pertaining to precedent autonomy (specifically advance decision-making) and the best interests of the incapacitated patient, the judgment issued in M's case implicitly engages with three different accounts of the value of human life, which respectively emphasise its self-determined, intrinsic and instrumental value. The judge appeared to be most persuaded by the intrinsic value of life and he concluded that treatment ought to continue. Assessing whether his approach or conclusion were ethically appropriate involves significant substantive and evidential questions regarding where the burden of proof should lie and what standard of proof should be required when decisions are to be made about the fates of patients inhabiting ‘twilight worlds’.
- Living Wills/Advance Directives
- Capacity
- Competence/incompetence
- Law
- Neuroethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: ethical, legal and practical dilemmas
- A matter of life and death
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions