Responses
Law, ethics and medicine
Paper
Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
Compose a Response to This Article
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 26 January 2015
- Published on: 26 January 2015A very difficult areaShow More
A very difficult area indeed. My view is that that, once you have decided to stop fluids and/or nutrition, then the patient will certainly die. Whether or not they will suffer whilst starving, or dehydrating, is unclear. However, prolonging life in such cases extends suffering for relatives, staff, and possibly/probably the patient.
A lethal injection at this point is surely more humane than extending life and,...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: family experiences
- The minimally conscious state and treatment withdrawal: W v M
- Eluana Englaro, chronicle of a death foretold: ethical considerations on the recent right-to-die case in Italy
- 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
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- Clinicians and the right to decide on withdrawal of treatment