In the 2011 landmark case of W v M, the English Court of Protection ruled that it was unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a woman who had been in a minimally conscious state for 8 years. From the perspective of the court, the absence of a written advance directive negated the woman’s previous, autonomous interests and, consequently, emphasis was given to her current welfare and well-being. While life itself is a moral good, prolonging life for a person in regular pain with no hope of recovering to a more complete state of awareness simply because that person only verbalized her wishes about her treatment decisions seems to drastically undervalue the principle of autonomy. We refute the notion that it is the role of the court to prolong life insofar as it can and argue that withholding and withdrawing life sustaining technologies from patients in a minimally conscious state can be ethically justified.
- Clinical Ethics
- End of Life Care
- Living Wills/Advance Directives
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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?
- The weight attributed to patient values in determining best interests
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
- Best interests and the sanctity of life after W v M
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Artificial nutrition and hydration in the patient with advanced dementia: is withholding treatment compatible with traditional Judaism?
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
- Ethics briefings
- A matter of life and death