Abstract
Perhaps the most troublesome medical decisionmaking cases facing state courts concern serious healthcare decisions involving patients with severe or profound retardation. The courts who face this issue encounter a difficult dilemma. A decision to terminate a medical treatment of a dependent, vulnerable person requires considerable solicitude. Allowing a helpless person to die sooner than is medically possible directly conflicts with that person's most basic right – the right to live. However, continuing treatment in the face of terminal illness may not only prolong but also increase intense mental and physical suffering. Perpetuating near torture in the name of protecting a person's life may be equally worrisome.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health(social science)
Reference146 articles.
1. Foody v. Manchester Memorial Hosp. 482 A. 2d 713 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1984).
2. Thomasma . 1984;32:713.
3. Rasmussen v. Fleming. 741 P. 2d 674 (Ariz. 1987).
4. Does Legislating Hospital Ethics Committees Make a Difference? A Study of Hospital Ethics Committees in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia
5. In re Guardianship of L. W. 482 N.W. 2d 60 (Wis. 1992).
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献