Many health problems that elderly people face today relate not only to the nature of their affliction but also to the kind of treatment required. Such treatment often includes artificial nutrition and hydration, (ANH) a procedure which, despite its technical and invasive character, is still considered to be vested with symbolic meanings. It is precisely during the efforts to reach a legal consensus that the discrepancies between various cultural contexts become obvious. The following case explores the Greek clinical territory in comparison with the international situation, and the reasons why, in Greece, the right to refuse treatment is not necessarily interpreted as including the right to refuse artificial nutrition and hydration as well.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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
- Eluana Englaro, chronicle of a death foretold: ethical considerations on the recent right-to-die case in Italy
- Ethical issues in nutrition support: a view from the coalface
- Artificial nutrition and hydration in the patient with advanced dementia: is withholding treatment compatible with traditional Judaism?
- Artificial nutrition and hydration for children and young people towards end of life: consensus guidelines across four specialist paediatric palliative care centres
- A matter of life and death
- End of life decisions
- Current controversies and irresolvable disagreement: the case of Vincent Lambert and the role of ‘dissensus’
- Ethics briefings
- 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  EWCOP 32
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives