Abstract
Abstract
Background
In the ruling in Y [2018], the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no general requirement for the courts in England and Wales to authorise the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. The perceived requirement, which originated in a court ruling in 1993, encompassed those in the vegetative state and those in the minimally conscious state. The ruling in Y confirms that the court may still be approached to decide difficult or contested cases, but there is otherwise no routine requirement that the judges be approached.
Main body
There is much to welcome in this ruling, particularly as it means that these decisions for these patients are no longer (unusually) singled out for a judicial decision, with all the financial and emotional costs that court proceedings can entail. However, there is also a risk that the ruling might have unwelcome consequences. First, there is the possibility that patients might die too soon, particularly if doctors should now adopt the courts’ previous reasoning, which has suggested that patients in the vegetative state lack interests, so treatment may – perhaps must – be withdrawn. Secondly, there is the converse possibility that patients might live too long, since empirical research suggests that – whether intentionally or not – patients’ families, clinicians, and the health system appear to promote treatment-by-default.
Conclusion
Rather than adopt general positions, which may be contestable and potentially risky, this article argues, on a pluralistic basis, that the individual patient should be the focus of any decision made in his or her ‘best interests’. The existing legal framework in England and Wales, which is provided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, already points in this direction, although more efforts may be needed to ensure that those involved in making these decisions are suitably educated and supported. Fortunately, new guidance from the British Medical Association could help clinicians and families to make decisions in the future, which are appropriate for the incapacitated individual patient in question.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health (social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference67 articles.
1. Bunn S, Fritz Z. Vegetative and minimally conscious states. POST note 489. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; 2015.
2. Royal College of Physicians. Prolonged disorders of consciousness: national clinical guidelines. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2013.
3. British Medical Association and Royal College of Physicians. Clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) and adults who lack the capacity to consent: guidance for decision-making in England and Wales. London: British Medical Association; 2018.
4. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789.
5. British Medical Association. Withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment: guidance for decision making. 3rd ed. London: Blackwell Publishing; 2007.
Cited by
6 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