Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Paper
Burdens of ANH outweigh benefits in the minimally conscious state
  1. Walter Glannon
  1. Correspondence to Dr Walter Glannon, Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4; wglannon{at}ucalgary.ca

Abstract

In the case of the minimally conscious patient M, the English Court of Protection ruled that it would be unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) from her. The Court reasoned that the sanctity of life was the determining factor and that it would not be in M's best interests for ANH to be withdrawn. This paper argues that the Court's reasoning is flawed and that continued ANH was not in this patient's best interests and thus should have been withdrawn.

  • Clinical Ethics
  • Living Wills/Advance Directives
  • Pain Management
  • Quality/Value of Life/Personhood

Statistics from Altmetric.com

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.

Linked Articles