Should patients in a persistent vegetative state be allowed to die? Guidelines for a new standard of care in Australian hospitals.
In this article we will be arguing in favour of legislating to protect doctors who bring about the deaths of PVS patients, regardless of whether the death is through passive means (e.g. the discontinuation of artificial feeding and respiration) or active means (e.g. through the administration of pharmaceuticals known to hasten death in end-of-life care). We will first discuss the ethical dilemmas doctors and lawmakers faced in the more famous PVS cases arising in the US and UK, before exploring what the law should be regarding such patients, particularly in Australia. We will continue by arguing in favour of allowing euthanasia in the interests of PVS patients, their families, and finally the wider community, before concluding with some suggestions for how these ethical arguments could be transformed into a set of guidelines for medical practice in this area.
Monash University, Clayton, Australia. evie.kendal@monash.edu.
Evie
E
Kendal
Deakin University, Burwood, Australia. laurajane.maher@deakin.edu.
Laura-Jane
LJ
Maher
D001315:Australia; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D028601:Euthanasia, Active / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000941:ethics*; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D018458:Persistent Vegetative State / Q000628:therapy*; D059039:Standard of Care / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*
Euthanasia; MCS; Minimally conscious state; PVS; Persistent vegetative state