RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Current controversies and irresolvable disagreement: the case of Vincent Lambert and the role of ‘dissensus’
JF Journal of Medical Ethics
JO J Med Ethics
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics
SP medethics-2019-105622
DO 10.1136/medethics-2019-105622
A1 Dominic Wilkinson
A1 Julian Savulescu
YR 2019
UL http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2019/08/08/medethics-2019-105622.abstract
AB Controversial cases in medical ethics are, by their very nature, divisive. There are disagreements that revolve around questions of fact or of value. Ethical debate may help in resolving those disagreements. However, sometimes in such cases, there are opposing reasonable views arising from deep-seated differences in ethical values. It is unclear that agreement and consensus will ever be possible. In this paper, we discuss the recent controversial case of Vincent Lambert, a French man, diagnosed with a vegetative state, for whom there were multiple court hearings over a number of years. Both family and health professionals were divided about whether artificial nutrition and hydration should be withdrawn and Lambert allowed to die. We apply a ‘dissensus’ approach to his case and argue that the ethical issue most in need of scrutiny (resource allocation) is different from the one that was the focus of attention.