In two recent court cases, Ms B, a paralysed competent adult, was allowed to end her life; Mrs Pretty, another paralysed competent adult, was not. In legal terms, the essential difference between the two cases is that Ms B was seeking the withdrawal of treatment, whereas Mrs Pretty was asking for assistance in ending her life. I argue that while this distinction may accurately state the law that governs these situations, it does not rest on a defensible moral basis. Both the women should have been allowed to choose the manner in which they would die. (+info)
Grasping the nettle--what to do when patients withdraw their consent for treatment: (a clinical perspective on the case of Ms B).
(42/156)
Withdrawal of active treatment is common in medical practice, especially in critical care medicine. Usually, however, it involves patients who are unable to take part in the decision making process. As the case of Ms B shows, doctors are sometimes reluctant to withdraw active treatment when the patient is awake and requesting such a course of action. In theory, having a competent patient should facilitate clinical decision making, so where does the problem arise? It is argued that latent medical paternalism may come to the surface when doctors are asked by patients to follow a course of action which is in conflict with their own perspective. (+info)
The case of Ms B: suicide's slippery slope?
(43/156)
In the case of Ms B, the High Court ruled that as Ms B was a competent adult patient, her doctors acted unlawfully in overriding her refusal of life-preserving ventilation. This commentary considers whether this case supports the proposition that in English law the right to refuse treatment extends even to refusals which are clearly suicidal. (+info)
A disability perspective from the United States on the case of Ms B.
(44/156)
This article will examine the case of Ms B, a woman with tetraplegia for a year, who, prior to rehabilitation or return to community life, sought a ruling that doctors may turn off her ventilator. The authors are people with disabilities. Their analysis focuses on the manner in which the High Court (a) framed the case in terms of mental capacity, (b) addressed the issue of suicide and ambivalence, and (c) resolved informed consent and treatment alternative issues. While the disability community in the US does not oppose the general right to refuse treatment, there is significant concern about lack of informed consent and denial of desired treatment alternatives, and the cavalier manner in which these factors have been dismissed. (+info)
The case of Ms B and the "right to die".
(45/156)
The High Court in England has ruled that doctors are acting illegally if they refuse to comply with a competent patient's request to switch off their ventilator even if the result would be death. If doctors feel unable to do this then they must arrange for the patient to be transferred to the care of a colleague who is prepared to comply with the request. (+info)
Withholding the artificial administration of fluids and food from elderly patients with dementia: ethnographic study.
(46/156)
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the practice of withholding the artificial administration of fluids and food from elderly patients with dementia in nursing homes. DESIGN: Qualitative, ethnographic study in two phases. SETTING: 10 wards in two nursing homes in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 35 patients with dementia, eight doctors, 43 nurses, and 32 families. RESULTS: The clinical course of dementia was considered normal and was rarely reason to begin the artificial administration of fluids and food in advanced disease. Fluids and food seemed to be given mainly when there was an acute illness or a condition that needed medical treatment and which required hydration to be effective. The medical condition of the patient, the wishes of the family, and the interpretations of the patients' quality of life by their care providers were considered more important than living wills and policy agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors' decisions about withholding the artificial administration of fluids and food from elderly patients with dementia are influenced more by the clinical course of the illness, the presumed quality of life of the patient, and the patient's medical condition than they are by advanced planning of care. In an attempt to understand the wishes of the patient doctors try to create the broadest possible basis for the decision making process and its outcome, mainly by involving the family. (+info)
Life support withdrawal: communication and conflict.
(47/156)
BACKGROUND: Skillful communication between and among clinicians and patients' families at the patients' end of life is essential for decision making. Yet communication can be particularly difficult during stressful situations such as when a family member is critically ill. This is especially the case when families are faced with choices about forgoing life-sustaining treatment. OBJECTIVES: Data from a larger study on treatment withdrawal (n = 74) indicated that the family members (n = 20) of some patients experienced conflict with clinicians during decision making. This secondary analysis was done to examine and describe the communication difficulties from the perspectives of patients' family members who experienced conflict with clinicians about the care and treatment of the patients during withdrawal of life support. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive analysis of family members (n = 20, representing 12 decedents) who experienced conflict. RESULTS: Families described several unmet communication needs during the often rapid shift from aggressive treatment to palliative care. These needs included the need for timely information, the need for honesty, the need for clinicians to be clear, the need for clinicians to be informed, and the need for clinicians to listen. CONCLUSIONS: Although family members who experienced conflict were in the minority of the larger study sample, their concerns and needs are important for clinicians to examine. Paying careful attention to these communication needs could reduce the occurrence of conflict between clinicians and patients' families in caring for dying patients and reduce stress for all involved. (+info)
The ethics of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. I. Background to decision making.
(48/156)
Futile cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may prevent humane care of the dying child and deprive parents of the opportunity to express their love, grief, and dedication at a critical moment, while appropriate and successful CPR may restore intact their child. Attempted resuscitation of corpses or children with terminal illness indicates inadequate knowledge, discrimination, and decision making. CPR is a medical procedure applicable to certain medical problems; weighing up the risks and benefits in each individual case is a medical function that is constrained by the law and must take full note of patient and family preferences, but cannot be governed by them and should not be over-ruled by laws based on complex but different cases. Time limits on occasions may curtail the full process of consultation and decision making. Applications of skills and resources in the right time and place requires understanding of the medical logistics and study of the potential for good outcome. (+info)