Aruna Shanbaug, the brain-damaged woman who has lived in a Mumbai hospital for 38 years, should continue to live, the Supreme Court of India has ruled. Since the hospital staff are effectively her "next of kin", a request for euthanasia made on Aruna's behalf by activist Pinki Virani was turned down.
Early in 2011, Illinois joined the ranks of states that recognize civil unions between both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The law gives partners in these unions “the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses.” Despite the fact that Illinois and most other states still reserve marriage for opposite-sex couples, the option of civil unions will make it easier for some couples to make health care decisions for one another should one of them become incapacitated. Surrogate decision-makers for health care are a significant topic for everyone, but the issue has special resonance for same-sex couples because the law in most jurisdictions excludes same-sex couples from the benefits that marriage and some civil unions confer in those health care decisions. Timothy F. Murphy, "Surrogate Health Care Decisions and Same-Sex Relationships," Hastings Center Report 41, no. 3 (2011): 24-27.
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.
The Supreme Court of Canada will go ahead later this year and set a legal framework for when patients in a vegetative state can be withdrawn from life support. The court rejected a request this morning from the family of a severely ill Toronto man, Hassan Rasouli, to withdraw the case from its docket on the grounds that Mr. Rasouli recently passed into a higher degree of consciousness.
DOCTORS made an urgent plea to the Supreme Court yesterday to help save the life of a Jehovah's Witness girl dying of leukaemia. Justice Richard White ordered the girl, 4, receive treatment, including a blood transfusion to which her parents had objected on religious grounds. Paediatric oncologist Dr Petra Ritchie, right, said without treatment the girl "will die . . . I would say in weeks". Dr Ritchie said that the girl, who was diagnosed with cancer of the blood and bone marrow on Monday, had a 90 per cent chance of survival if she received treatment immediately. Doctors had this week advised she needed a potentially life-saving blood transfusion but her parents objected on religious grounds. The parents' opposition prompted the hospital to petition the court saying that, without treatment, the girl would die in a matter of weeks.
A cancer-stricken woman fighting a right-to-die battle against her parents won the backing of an appellate court Friday, which ruled that the 28-year-old bank manager from New York City who is paralyzed as a result of a brain tumor may decide her own fate. The emotional case has been playing out in Grace SungEun Lee’s room at North Shore University Hospital on Long Island, and on a Facebook page, Save Grace SungEun Lee, created by those who sided with family members desperate to keep Lee on life support. As word of the appellate court’s decision spread Friday, the page was swarmed with comments from people arguing for and against it, underscoring the passionate debate that surrounds the issue of individuals’ rights to choose death over terminal illness.
End-of-life decision making is fraught with ethical challenges. Withholding or withdrawing life support therapy is widely considered ethical in patients with high treatment burden, poor premorbid status, or significant projected disability even when such treatment is not “futile.” Whether such withdrawal of therapy in the aftermath of attempted suicide is ethical is not well established in the literature. We provide a clinical vignette and propose criteria under which such withdrawal would be ethical. We suggest that it is appropriate to withdraw life support, regardless of the cause of the critical illness or disability, when the following criteria are met: (1) Surrogates request withdrawal of care and the adequacy of surrogates is confirmed, (2) an external reasonability standard is met, (3) passage of time, perhaps 72 hours, to allow certainty regarding the patient's wishes, and (4) psychiatric morbidity should be considered as grounds for withdrawal only in truly treatment-refract