Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Comment on: “Back to the bedside? Making clinical decisions in patients with prolonged unconsciousness” (Wade, D.) & “Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state” (Fritz, Z.)
In this issue of the journal, Dr Fritz and Dr Wade raise the controversial issue of the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC).1 ,2
Dr Fritz, in an elegant demonstration, illustrates how it could be in the best interests (referring also to the Best Interest procedure as described in the Mental Capacity Act)3 of the patient to stop his life promptly (ie, by injection of lethal drugs) to save another patient's life through organ donation rather than considering withdrawal of CANH. Although the underlying reasoning is very relevant, I would like to point out that we are here dealing with several issues that the author might have mixed up. First, we are questioning the patient's right to an autonomous choice around organ donation and their right to refuse or to withdraw medical treatments. Moreover, although a special focus was made on patients with DOC, we are clearly questioning the more general and touchy subject of organ donation from …
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Disorders of consciousness
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- Ethics briefing
- It is never lawful or ethical to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- ‘In a twilight world’? Judging the value of life for the minimally conscious patient
- Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: ethical, legal and practical dilemmas