title: The medical provision of hydration and nutrition: two very different outcomes in Victoria and Florida.
abstract: Decisions to withhold or withdraw medical hydration and nutrition are amongst the most difficult that confront patients and their families, medical and other health professionals all over the world. This article discusses two cases relating to lawful withdrawal and withholding of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG) from incompetent patients with no hope of recovery. Victoria and Florida have statutory frameworks that provide for advance directives, however in both Gardner; Re BWV and Schindler v Schiavo; Re Schiavo the respective patients did not leave documented instructions. The article analyses the two cases and their outcomes from legal, medical and ethical perspectives.
authors.affiliation: School of Law, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria. d.mendel@deakin.edu.au
authors.forename: Danuta
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Mendelson
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ashby
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D003657:Decision Making; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D005431:Florida; D005440:Fluid Therapy; D006801:Humans; D007872:Legal Guardians / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D018529:Nutritional Support; D010166:Palliative Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018458:Persistent Vegetative State / Q000628:therapy; D011057:Politics; D012067:Religion; D012297:Right to Die / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D020458:Third-Party Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014739:Victoria