This article discusses a recent ruling by the German Federal Court concerning medical professional liability due to potentially unlawful clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) at the end of life. This case raises important ethical and legal questions regarding a third person’s right to judge the value of another person’s life and the concept of ‘wrongful life’. In our brief report, we discuss the concepts of the ‘value of life’ and wrongful life, which were evoked by the court, and how these concepts apply to the present case. We examine whether and to what extent value-of-life judgements can be avoided in medical decision-making. The wrongful-life concept is crucial to the understanding of this case. It deals with the question whether life, even when suffering is involved, could ever be worse than death. The effects of this ruling on medical and legal practice in Germany are to be seen. It seems likely that it will discourage claims for compensation following life-sustaining treatment (LST). However, it is unclear to what extent physicians’ decisions will be affected, especially those concerning withdrawal of CANH. We conclude that there is a risk that LST may come to be seen as the ‘safe’ option for the physician, and hence, as always appropriate.
- end of life care
- informed consent
- living wills/advance directives
- mentally ill and disabled persons
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.
Contributors Both authors developed the idea for and determined the scope of the article. UP did the literature review and wrote the first draft. Both authors revised the article.
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.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
- Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: ethical, legal and practical dilemmas
- 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
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- When ‘Sanctity of Life’ and ‘Self-Determination’ clash: Briggs versus Briggs  EWCOP 53 – implications for policy and practice
- Why the BMA guidance on CANH is dangerous
- Procedure, practice and legal requirements: a commentary on ‘Why I wrote my advance decision’
- Ethics of providing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration: current issues