Article info
PDFEthics briefing
Ethics briefing
- Correspondence to Martin Davies, Department of Medical Ethics and Human Rights, British Medical Association, London WC1H 9JP, UK; mdavies{at}bma.org.uk
Citation
Ethics briefing
Publication history
- First published September 25, 2018.
Online issue publication
September 25, 2018
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
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
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?
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
- Withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration decisions in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: best interests of the patients and advance directives are the keys
- Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: ethical, legal and practical dilemmas
- Ethics briefing
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- Why the BMA guidance on CANH is dangerous