Article info
PDFWithdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
Paper
Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?
- Correspondence to Dr Julian C Sheather, Ethics Department, British Medical Association, London WC1H 9JP, UK; jsheather{at}bma.org.uk
Citation
Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?
Publication history
- Received March 12, 2012
- Accepted March 20, 2012
- First published May 17, 2012.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- 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://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- Best interests and the sanctity of life after W v M
- The weight attributed to patient values in determining best interests
- Withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Tom Buller on the principle of precedent autonomy and the relation between critical and experiential interests
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- A matter of life and death
- Advance consent, critical interests and dementia research
- ‘In a twilight world’? Judging the value of life for the minimally conscious patient