title: Burdens of ANH outweigh benefits in the minimally conscious state.
abstract: In the case of the minimally conscious patient M, the English Court of Protection ruled that it would be unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) from her. The Court reasoned that the sanctity of life was the determining factor and that it would not be in M's best interests for ANH to be withdrawn. This paper argues that the Court's reasoning is flawed and that continued ANH was not in this patient's best interests and thus should have been withdrawn.
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy,University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4. wglannon@ucalgary.ca
authors.forename: Walter
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Glannon
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D017281:Cost of Illness; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D018529:Nutritional Support / Q000941:ethics*; D010146:Pain; D018458:Persistent Vegetative State; D011379:Prognosis; D026712:Value of Life; D028761:Withholding Treatment / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence
keywords: Clinical Ethics; Living Wills/Advance Directives; Pain Management; Quality/Value of Life/Personhood