How should modern medicine's dramatic new powers to sustain life be employed? How should limited resources be used to extend and improve the quality of life? In this collection, Dan Brock, a distinguished philosopher and bioethicist and co-author of Deciding for Others (Cambridge, 1989), explores the moral issues raised by new ideals of shared decision making between physicians and patients. The book develops an ethical framework for decisions about life-sustaining treatment and euthanasia, and examines how these life and death decisions are transformed in health policy when the focus shifts from what is best for a patient to what is just for all patients. Professor Brock combines acute philosophical analysis with a deep understanding of the realities of clinical health policy. This is a volume for philosophers concerned with medical ethics, health policy professionals, physicians interested in bioethics, and undergraduate courses in biomedical ethics.
The National Ethics Council has intensively discussed the issues involved in dealing responsibly with dying. It has perused a large volume of material, obtained expert opinions, consulted with doctors and other medical specialists, and held meetings in Augsburg and Münster at which it exposed itself to public debate. The outcome is enshrined in the Opinion now presented. Self-determination and care at the end of life continues the examination of the themes addressed in the Opinion The advance directive published in June 2005. The present analysis, in conjunction with the clarification of terminology here proposed, may facilitate interpretation of the recommendations set out in that Opinion.
Comprehensive guidance for doctors on care at the end of life, including difficult decisions on when to provide, withhold, or withdraw life prolonging treatment, will go out for consultation from the UK’s General Medical Council in March. The draft guidance was approved by the council at its February meeting, subject to minor amendments. The consultation will be launched in the week beginning 23 March and will end in July. The new advice takes account of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; government strategies on end of life care in England and Scotland; GMC guidance in 2007 on consent; recent research; and a Court of Appeal judgment on a legal challenge to the GMC’s 2002 guidance Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Treatments (Burke).
Tang Siu-pun, also known as Ah Bun, wrote to the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 15 March 2004 to request euthanasia. His campaign for euthanasia alerted Hong Kong society to his plight and raised awareness of the issues relating to the 'right to die.' This article explains Ah Bun’s request in legal terms, illustrating the differences, controversial as they may be, between the right of a competent patient to have one’s ventilator (or other form of life support) removed, as opposed to euthanasia or assisted suicide. Both assisted suicide and euthanasia are currently illegal and raise many difficult moral and social questions. However, the law recognises, by way of the application of a general legal principle, a more limited right of a competent patient to have a life support machine switched off, even if this would inevitably accelerate, or lead to, death.
Subsequent to an intensive three-year period of reflection, the CMQ is revealing its perspective and conclusions today regarding end-of-life care and euthanasia. The CMQ embraces the point of view of the patient who is confronting imminent and inevitable death. In such a situation, the patient looks to their physician and generally requests that they be able to die without undue suffering and with dignity. Neither surveys, nor attorneys, nor politicians can properly advise the physician and the patient facing this situation. In the majority of cases, the patient and their doctor find the appropriate analgesia that respects the ethical obligation of physicians not to preserve life at any cost, but rather, when the death of a patient appears to be inevitable, to act so that it occurs with dignity and to ensure that the patient obtains the appropriate support and relief.
Objectives: To investigate why physicians label end-of-life acts as either ‘euthanasia/ending of life’ or ‘alleviation of symptoms/palliative or terminal sedation’, and to study the association of such labelling with intended reporting of these acts. Conclusions: Similar cases are not uniformly labelled. However, a physicians’ label is strongly associated with their willingness to report their acts. Differences in how physicians label similar acts impede complete societal control. Further education and debate could enhance the level of agreement about what is physician-assisted dying, and thus should be reported, and what not.
Medical end-of-life decisions are frequent in minors in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas parents were involved in most end-of-life decisions, the patients themselves were involved much less frequently, even when the ending of their lives was intended. At the time of decision making, patients were often comatose or the physicians deemed them incompetent or too young to be involved.
Dying Auckland GP John Pollock says he will be "long gone" by the time the fiery debate on euthanasia has reached a resolution. Pollock, 61, ignited the issue last month when he went public calling for a review of the law which prohibits euthanasia for dying and suffering Kiwis. Pollock, who is suffering from metastatic melanoma, is now shying away from the spotlight, not wanting to spend his final days in a glare of publicity. But, he says, he has done what he set out to do - start an open and vigorous debate on a subject which has been more-or-less taboo up until now. "My part in all this is over," says Pollock. "I set out to ignite debate, and the fire has now been lit - in fact it's blazing. I'm not going to be the centrepiece for the fight. It's going to take donkey's years and I'll be long gone." The key, he says, is to get the medical profession on board.
This End of life guidance covers three main issues: contemporaneous and advance refusal of treatment; withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment; assisted dying - euthanasia and assisted suicide.
ROMA - I punti salienti della legge sul testamento biologico approvata oggi alla Camera, che per il varo definitivo dovrà tornare al Senato, sono almeno due: le dichiarazioni anticipate di trattamento non sono vincolanti per i medici ed escludono la possibilità di sospendere nutrizione e idratazione, salvo in casi terminali. Inoltre, sono applicabili solo se il paziente ha un'accertata assenza di attività cerebrale.