Article info
PDFEditor's choice
Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Correspondence to Professor Raanan Gillon, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Campus, London W6 8RP, UK; raanan.gillon{at}imperial.ac.uk
Citation
Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
Publication history
- Received January 10, 2016
- Accepted March 29, 2016
- First published April 26, 2016.
Online issue publication
July 28, 2017
Article Versions
- Previous version (28 July 2017).
- 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://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
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?
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: family experiences
- 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
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- It is never lawful or ethical to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state