Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions Journal Article

Local Library Link: Find It @ Loyola

Authors: Hebron, A. L.; McGee, S.
Article Title: Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
Abstract: In the 2011 landmark case of W v M, the English Court of Protection ruled that it was unlawful to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a woman who had been in a minimally conscious state for 8 years. From the perspective of the court, the absence of a written advance directive negated the woman's previous, autonomous interests and, consequently, emphasis was given to her current welfare and well-being. While life itself is a moral good, prolonging life for a person in regular pain with no hope of recovering to a more complete state of awareness simply because that person only verbalized her wishes about her treatment decisions seems to drastically undervalue the principle of autonomy. We refute the notion that it is the role of the court to prolong life insofar as it can and argue that withholding and withdrawing life sustaining technologies from patients in a minimally conscious state can be ethically justified.
Journal Title: Journal of medical ethics
Volume: 40
Issue: 10
ISSN: 1473-4257; 0306-6800
Publisher: Unknown  
Journal Place: England
Date Published: 2014
Start Page: 714
End Page: 716
Language: eng
DOI/URL:

10.1136/medethics-2013-102004
Notes: CI: Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com.archer.luhs.org/group/rights-licensing/permissions.; JID: 7513619; OTO: NOTNLM; 2014/02/24 [aheadofprint]; ppublish