The permanently unconscious patient, non-feeding and euthanasia.
Some sources condemn judicial decisions which authorize the withdrawal of artificial nutrition from permanently unconscious patients. These critics assert that withdrawal of nutrition from a preservable unconscious patient amounts to intentional killing of a helpless human being. Grave implications are seen for helpless patients. This article confronts these critics and their assertions. The author contends that the judicial approach which allows withdrawal of artificial nutrition is fully consistent with traditional medico-legal doctrines. The article articulates a standard--respect for human dignity--which justifies withdrawal of artificial nutrition from a permanently unconscious patient. The implications of this formula for other incompetent patients facing a protracted dying process is discussed. Finally, the article explains why active euthanasia can and ought to be distinguished from withdrawal of life-preserving medical intervention.
Cantor
N L
NL
Rutgers Law School, Newark, New Jersey.
D001293:Attitude to Death; D032981:Dehumanization; D004750:Enteral Nutrition; D005065:Euthanasia; D028601:Euthanasia, Active; D006801:Humans; D033222:Judicial Role; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D014474:Unconsciousness / Q000628:therapy; D014481:United States; D026712:Value of Life; D028761:Withholding Treatment