Article Text
Abstract
"Best interests" is widely accepted as the appropriate foundation principle for medico-legal decisions concerning treatment withdrawal from patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS). Its application appears to progress logically from earlier use regarding legally incompetent patients. This author argues, however, that such confidence in the relevance of the principle of best interests to PVS is misplaced, and that current construction in this context is questionable on four specific grounds. Furthermore, it is argued that the resulting legal inconsistency is distorting both the principle itself and, more particularly, individual patient interests.
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.
Other content recommended for you
- The best interests of persistently vegetative patients: to die rather that to live?
- Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: ethical, legal and practical dilemmas
- Thalamic proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in vegetative state induced by traumatic brain injury
- Disability matters in medical law
- The persistent vegetative state, treatment withdrawal, and the Hillsborough disaster: Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- Withholding artificial feeding from the severely demented: merciful or immoral? Contrasts between secular and Jewish perspectives
- Worth living or worth dying? The views of the general public about allowing disabled children to die