Withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration for patients in a permanent vegetative state: Changing tack

Bioethics

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 157-163

  Constable, Catherine ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Advance directive(s); Artificial nutrition and hydration; Bioethics; Euthanasia; Substituted judgment; Surrogate decision making; Vegetative state

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; FLUID THERAPY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; LIVING WILL; NUTRITIONAL SUPPORT; PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; POLICY; SOCIOECONOMICS; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL; UNITED STATES;

ADVANCE DIRECTIVES; DECISION MAKING; FLUID THERAPY; HUMANS; NUTRITIONAL SUPPORT; PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PUBLIC POLICY; THIRD-PARTY CONSENT; UNITED STATES; VALUE OF LIFE; WITHHOLDING TREATMENT;

EID: 84856658316     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01841.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Duane. S3164B, Family Healthcare Decisions Act. (March 2009). Available at: [Accessed 29 March 2010].
2. Position of the American Academy of Neurology on Certain Aspects of the Care and Management of the Persistent Vegetative State Patient. Adopted by the Executive Board, American Academy of Neurology, April 21, 1988, Cincinnati, Ohio. Neurology 1989; 39: 125-126.
3. D. Bacon et al. Position Statement on Laws and Regulations Concerning Life-sustaining Treatment, including Artificial Nutrition and Hydration, for Patients Lacking Decision-making Capacity. Ibid. 2007; 68: 1097-1100.
4. Practice Parameters: Assessment and Management of Patients in the Persistent Vegetative State (summary statement). The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 1995; 45: 1015-1018.
5. Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2004).
6. M. Parker & D. Dickenson. 2001. The Cambridge Medical Ethics Workbook. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 30.
7. J. Rachels. Active and Passive Euthanasia. N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 78-80
8. H.V. McLachlan. The Ethics of Killing and Letting Die: Active and Passive Euthanasia. J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 636-638.
9. Airedale NH., 19 February Trust v. Bland, W.L.R.: 316.1993
10. T. Hope et al. 2003. Medical Ethics and the Law; The Core Curriculum. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone: 160.
11. M.M. Monti et al. Willful Modulation of Brain Activity in Disorders of Consciousness. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 579-589.
12. A.H. Ropper. Cogito Ergo Sum by MRI. Ibid.: 648-649
13. A.M. Owen & M.R. Coleman. Detecting Awareness in the Vegetative State. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008; 1129: 130-138.
14. P. Singer. 1995. Rethinking Life and Death; The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15. D.W. Brock & A.E. Buchanan. 1989. Deciding for others: the ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16. J.A. Robertson. Second Thoughts on Living Wills. Hastings Cent Rep 1991; 21: 6-9.
17. P. Cattorini & M. Reichlin. Persistent Vegetative State: a Presumption to Treat. Theor Med 1997; 18: 263-281
18. NHS Trust A v. H 2 F.L.R. 501 (H.C.) (2001)
19. R (Burke) v. General Medical Council QB 424 (paras. 145-9).2005
20. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. 1994. When Death is Sought: Assisted Suicide in the Medical Context. New York, NY: The New York Task Force on Life and the Law: 142.
21. A. Gallup and F. Newport, eds. 2006. The Gallup Poll; Public Opinion Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: 117.2005
22. ABC News Polling Unit. 2001. Poll: Two-Thirds Back Spouse in Right to Die Cases. New York, NY: 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures. Available at: [Accessed 31 Dec 2009].
23. D. Brock. 2001. Medical Decisions at the End of Life. In A Companion to Bioethics. H. Huhse & P. Singer, eds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing: 231-241.
24. The Gallup Organization. 2005. 2005 National Survey of Organ and Tissue Donation and Attitudes and Behaviors. Washington, DC: Health Resources and Service Administration. Available at [Accessed 31 Dec 2009].
25. H.V. McLachlan & J.K. Swales. Posthumous iInsemination and Consent: the Continuing, Troubling Case of Mr and Mrs Blood. Hum Reprod Genet Ethics 2003; 9: 7-12
26. M. Parker. Response to Orr and Siegler - Collective Intentionality and Procreative Desires: the Permissible View on Consent to Posthumous Conception. J Med Ethics 2004; 30: 389-392.
27. M. Boly et al.Perception of Pain in the Minimally Conscious State with PET Activation: an Observational Study. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7: 1013-1020
28. S. Laureys et al. Cortical Processing of Noxious Somatosensory Stimuli in the Persistent Vegetative State Neuroimage 2002; 17: 732-741.
29. Medical Aspects of the Persistent Vegetative State (1&2). The Multi-Society Task Force on PVS. 1499-1508 & 1572-1579[Erratum, N Engl J Med 1995 333: 130] N Engl J Med 1994330
30. The Permanent Vegetative State. Review by a working group convened by the Royal College of Physicians and endorsed by the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their faculties of the United Kingdom. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1996; 30: 119-121.