Share
PDFDisorders of consciousness
Commentary on Derick Wade's ‘Back to the bedside? Making clinical decisions in patients with prolonged unconsciousness’ and Zoe Fritz’ ‘Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley?’ Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
Share this article
Click the icon of the social media platform on which you would like to share this article.
Email this article to a friend
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?
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- Withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration decisions in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: best interests of the patients and advance directives are the keys
- Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
- It is never lawful or ethical to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Ethics briefing
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- Back to the bedside? Making clinical decisions in patients with prolonged unconsciousness
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position