Article Text
PDFBrief report
Why the BMA guidance on CANH is dangerous
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors This is the sole work of the author.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: a stock-take of the legal and ethical position
- Ethics briefing
- Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: ethical, legal and practical dilemmas
- Ethics of providing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration: current issues
- 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
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- Can there be wrongful life at the end of life? German courts revisit an old problem in a new context