Enigmatic refusals: The difference between a potential problem and one in a patient under our care

Chest

Volumn 126, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 337-339

  Layon, A Joseph ^a,b,d   Franklin, Cory ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Fire Rescue   (United States)

^c ROSALIND FRANKLIN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND SCIENCE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; EDITORIAL; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; ILLNESS BEHAVIOR; INTENSIVE CARE; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT RIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 4143061439     PISSN: 00123692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1378/chest.126.2.337     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Franklin C, Rosenbloom B. Proposing a new standard to establish medical competence for the purpose of critical care intervention. Crit Care Med 2000; 28:3035-3038
2. Luce JM. Three patients who asked that life support be withheld or withdrawn in the surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:775-780
3. Luce JM. New standards for patient rights and medical competence. Crit Care Med 2000; 28:3114-3115
4. Veatch RM. Assault or homicide: treating and letting die without consent. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:937-938
5. United States v George, 239 F Supp 752 (Conn 1965)
6. Commissioner of Corrections v Myers, 399 NE2d 452 (Mass 1979)
7. Layon AJ, D'Amico R, Caton D, et al. And the patient chose: medical ethics and the case of the Jehovah's Witness. Anesthesiology 1990; 73:1258-1262