Article Text
PDFWithdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
Withdrawing artificial nutrition and patients’ interests
Abstract
I argue that the arguments brought by Counsel for M to the English Court of Protection are morally problematic in prioritising subjective interests that are the result of ‘consistent autonomous thought’ over subjective interests that are the result of a more limited cognitive perspective.
- Euthanasia
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- A matter of life and death
- Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Best interests and the sanctity of life after W v M
- ‘In a twilight world’? Judging the value of life for the minimally conscious patient
- Burdens of ANH outweigh benefits in the minimally conscious state
- 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