DOCSLIB.ORG

Resolving Disputes Over Life-Sustaining Treatment \I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Resolving Disputes Over Life-Sustaining Treatment \I .. ..: 4 .. NCSC HF 38-27 E87 M Y \\Resolving Disputes Over C,3 Life-Sustaining Treatment \I A Health Care Provider's Guide Thomas L. Hafemeister ani Paula L. Hannaford Wth the Greenwall Coordinating Council National Center for State Courts library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Ave. WJliamsburg, VA 23 187-8798 0 1996 National Center for State Courts Williamsburg, Virginia Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 96-70341 ISBN 0-89656-167-4 NCSC Publication Number R- 186 Cover design by Judith Ann Sullivan Images 0 1996 PhotoDisc, Inc. This book was prepared under a grant from the Greenwall Foundation. The points of view expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the National Center for State Courts or the Greenwall Foundation, or the opinions of the Greenwall Review Panel members. Comments are welcome and should be sent to the Greenwall Project, National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue (231851,PO. Box 8798, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8798. Greenwall Coordinating Council Hon. Stewart G. Pollock, Chair New Jersey Supreme Court Morristown, New Jersey Hon. Elizabeth B. Lacy, Vice-Chair Virginia Supreme Court Richmond, Virginia Hon. Robert C. Bibb (ret.) Alexander M. Capron, J.D. Deno, Millikan, Dale & Decker Professor of Law & Medicine Everett, Washington University of Southern California Law Center hsAngeles, California Ellen B. Comer, Esq. Ronald E. Cranford, M.D. Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman Department of Neurology Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Hennepin County Medical Center Minneapolis, Minnesota Norman Fost, M.D., M.P.H. Hon. Hilda R. Gage Professor Chief Judge, Michigan Circuit Court Pediatrics & History of Medicine Pontiac, Michigan Director, Program in Medical Ethics University of Wisconsin Medical School Joan McIver Gibson, Ph.D. Madison, Wisconsin Consulting Ethicist Albuquerque, New Mexico Alan Meisel, J.D. Kathryn Moseley, M.D. Professor of Law and Bioethics Department of Pediatrics School of Law Henry Ford Hospital University of Pittsburgh Detroit, Michigan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania John H. Pickering, Esq. Colleen Scanlon, R.N., M.S., J.D. Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering Director Washington, D .C . Center for Ethics & Human Rights American Nurses Association Washington, D.C. Susan M. Wolf, J.D. Associate Professor of Law & Medicine University of Minnesota School of Law Center for Biomedical Ethics Minneapolis, Minnesota VVilliam §tubing President Greenwall Foundation New York, New York National Center for State Courts Project Staff mCdOlr E. Phgo, Ph.D. Thomas L. Hafemeister, J.D., Ph.D. Project Director 119951996] Project Director ( 1993-1995) Pamela M. Casey, PkD. Paula L. Hannaford, J.D., M.P.P. Associate Director, Research Research Analyst Joshua E Stump Lisa Ghee Research Assistant Project Secretary jacquenine J. ~ncpven;]P~.D. Hngo Keilitz, Ph.D. Office of Ethics Sherwood Associates Children’s National Medical Center Williamsburg, Virginia Washington, D.C. Pam Lambert, MA., J.D. Joanne Lynn, M.D. Staff Attorney Center to Improve Care of the Dying Center for Health Law & Ethics George Washington University Institute of Public Law Medical Center University of New Mexico Washington, D.C. Albuquerque, New Mexico Christine Mitchell, M.S.N. Hon. Francis G. Poitrast Program in Ethics and the Professions Presiding Justice Harvard University Juvenile Court Department Cambridge, Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts Greenwall Review Panel Members Frederick R. Abrams, M.D. Hon. Douglas K. Amdahl Denver UniversityKolorado University Chief Justice (ret.] Health Ethics and Policy Consortium Minnesota Supreme Court Denver, Colorado Minneapolis, Minnesota Hon. Joseph F. Baca David Bennahum, M.D. Chief Justice UNM Health Sciences Center Supreme Court of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico Santa Fe, New Mexico Robin Borges, R.N. Richard Bourne, J.D., Ph.D. First American Home Care Office of General Counsel Hampton, Virginia Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts Leslie Bricker, M.D. Andrew Broder, Esq. Henry Ford Hospital Vlcko, Lane, Payne & Broder Detroit, Michigan Bingham Farms, Michigan Dennis Brodeur, Ph.D. Frederick W. Brown, Jr. SSM Health Care System Ethics Consultant St. Louis, Missouri Northampton, Massachusetts Susan Fox Buchanan, Esq. Elizabeth L. Buff Colorado Collective for Medical Far Hills, New Jersey Decisions and Consortium on Health Ethics and Policy Alexa Canady, M.D. Denver University and Chief of Neurosurgery University of Colorado Children’s Hospital of Michigan Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D. Eileen Chichin, D.S.W., R.N. University of Pennsylvania Center on Ethics in Geriatrics and Medical Center Longterm Care Philadelphia, Pennsylvania New York, New York Phyllis Chinlund, C.S.W. Myra Christopher Geriatric Outreach Program President The Jewish Home & Hospital Midwest Bioethics Center for the Aged Kansas City, Missouri New York, New York Ellen Wright Clayton, M.D., J.D. Nancy Coleman Vanderbilt University Commission on Legal Nashville, Tennessee Problems of the Elderly American Bar Association Washington, D.C. Sheila Contneetn, M.S.N., A.N.B. Nelia Davis, R.N., M.S.N. Program Director Clinical Nurse Specialist, Gerontology Hospital Based Home Care Sentara-LeighHospital VA Medical Center Norfolk, Virginia Albuquerque, New Mexico Kenneth De Ville, Ph.D., J.D. Martin E. Doerfler, M.D. School of Medicine Director of Critical Care Medicine East Carolina University N.Y.U. Medical Center Greenville, North Carolina New York, New York Terry Donnelr, B.S.N., J.D. Nancy N. Dubler, LL.B. Health Care Law & Risk Managemc:nt Director of the Division of Bioethics Consultant Montefiore Medical Center Adjunct Faculty, Ursuline College Bronx, New York Cleveland, Oh0 Horn. Christine M. Durham Linda Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D. Utah Supreme Court Assistant Director Salt Lake City, Utah Division of Medical Ethics Harvard Medical School Ezekiel EmanmeB, M.D., Ph.D. Boston, Massachusetts Brookline, Massachusetts Rick Elrickson Hon. Ralph Erickstad Director of Pastoral Services Chief Justice (ret.] St. Mary’s Health Center North Dakota Supreme Court St. Louis, Missouri Bismark, North Dakota 6. Douglas Perghlscpn, Esq. Joseph J. Fins, M.D. Anderson & Hunter The Hastings Center Everett, Washington Briarcliff Manor, New York Joseph Fischofd, M.D. John C. Fletcher, Ph.D. Chair, Ethcs Committee The Center for Biomedical Ethics Children’s Hospital of Michigan Charlottesville, Virginia Detroit, Michigan Keith Ghezzi, M.D. John Glasson, M.D. George Washington University Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs Medical Center American Medical Association Washington, D.C. Durham, North Carolina Hon. David Gdfitlin Amy Haddad, R.N., Ph.D. Magistrate, Probate Court Center for Health Policy and Ethics Colorado Springs, Colorado Creighton University Omaha, Nebraska Eunice Halverson James M. Hoefler, Ph.D. Director, Risk Management Associate Professor, Political Science, St. Mary’s Health Center and Coordinator of the Policy St. Louis, Missouri Studies Program Dickmson College Carlisle, Pennsylvania Diane E. Hoffmann, Esq. Fr. Jim Huth Assistant Professor of Law St. Joseph Healthcare System University of Maryland Albuquerque, New Mexico Baltimore, Maryland Sandra H. Johnson, Esq. Mary Gardiner Jones Center for Health Law Studies President St. Louis University Consumer Interest Research Institute School of Law Washington, D.C. St. Louis, Missouri Rev. Gail Joralemon Kathryn Kaminsky President Clinical Nurse Specialist New Mexico Health Decisions Psychiatry Consult Service Albuquerque, New Mexico University Hospitd Albuquerque, New Mexico Barbara S. Kellman, Esq. Wai LaMora, M.S.S. General Counsel First American Home Care New England Deaconess Hospital Newport News, Virginia Boston, Massachusetts Lauren Laughlin, Esq. Craig Lawson, Esq. staff Counsel, Probate Court College of Law St. Petersburg, Florida University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska Steven A. Levenson, M.D. Charles Lewis, M.D. Director, Medical Services San Diego Hospice Asbury Methodist Village San Diego, California ‘ Gaithersburg, Maryland John J..Lombard, Jr., Esq. Susan R. Martyq, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bochus College of Law Philadelphia, Pennsylvania University of Toledo Toledo, Oh10 Barbara Mathis, Esq. Nancy Maxwell, Esq. Medical Staff Affairs O’Brien, Tanski, Tanzer, &Young UNM Health Sciences Center Hartford, Connecticut Albuquerque, New Mexico Phyanis McNanngBnten, M.S.W. Helene Meyers, M.P.A. Discharge Planning & Counseling Senior Vice President/COO/ Memorial Hospital Administrator Colorado Springs, Colorado The Jewish Home & Hospital for the Aged New York, New York Vncki Michd, M.A., J.D. Steven Miles, M.D. Los Angeles, California Center for Biomedical Ethics Minneapolis, Minnesota Dormand IMnnnphx M.D. Bunny Nedry, R.N. Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Hospital/ San Diego Hospice Senior Center San Diego, California Denver, Colorado Won. Linda K Nenmana Sherwin B. Nuland, M.D. Iowa Supreme Court Clinical Professor of Surgery Davenport, Iowa Yale School of Medicine New Haven, Connecticut E&ln OISQn,M.D. David Qrentlicher, M.D., J.D. The Jewish Home & Hospital Associate Professor of Law and Adjunct for the Aged Associate Professor of Medicine New York, New York Indiana University Indianapolis, Indiana Rev. Doug Overall John Barker, M.D. Pastoral Care Eastern Virginia Medical School Denver General Hospital Norfolk, Virginia Denver, Colorado Polly Wrsonms, M.D. John POpOVkh, IV%.D. Pulmonology-Department of Medicine Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine Denver General Hospital Henry Ford
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schiavo Revisited? the Trs Uggle for Autonomy at the End of Life in Italy Kathy L
    Marquette Elder's Advisor Volume 12 Article 3 Issue 2 Spring Schiavo Revisited? The trS uggle for Autonomy at the End of Life in Italy Kathy L. Cerminara Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center Federico Gustavo Pizzetti University of Milan, Italy Watcharin H. Photangtham Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/elders Part of the Elder Law Commons Repository Citation Cerminara, Kathy L.; Pizzetti, Federico Gustavo; and Photangtham, Watcharin H. (2011) "Schiavo Revisited? The trS uggle for Autonomy at the End of Life in Italy," Marquette Elder's Advisor: Vol. 12: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/elders/vol12/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Elder's Advisor by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SCHIAVO REVISITED? THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTONOMY AT THE END OF LIFE IN ITALY Kathy L. Cerminara*, Federico Gustavo Pizzetti** & Watcharin H. Photangtham*** Politically strident debates surrounding end-of-life decisionmaking have surfaced once again, this time across the Atlantic in Italy. Eluana Englaro died in 2009 after a prolonged court fight, causing the internationalpress to compare her case to that of Theresa Marie Schiavo, who passed away in 2005 in Florida after nearly This Article's analysis of proposed Italian legislation was current as of August, 2010. Political debate has, however, continued in Italy, so that any legislation eventually passed may differ in important ways from that discussed here.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of the Law Affecting End-Of-Life Planning
    TRUSTS & ESTATES ARTICLE JANUARY 2008 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Evolution of the Law kAffecting End-of-Life Planning By Graham D. Holding, Christy Eve Reid & Susan I. McCrory Over the last thirty years there have been significant changes to end-of-life-planning. The changes were initiated as a result of “ugly” scenes played out on national television when grieving families were forced to sue health care providers in order to withdraw life-support systems from family members whose medical conditions would never improve. As a result of these lawsuits, Health Care Power of Attorney and Declaration of a Desire for a Natural Death (“Living Will”) statutes were enacted that recognized an individual’s right to control medical decisions, even when the individual lacked the ability to make or communicate those decisions. In 2007 substantial changes were made in North Carolina’s statutory Health Care Power of Attorney form as well as the statutory Living Will form. Although many improvements were made in North Carolina’s statutory forms, for the reasons expressed below we have decided to recommend that, in lieu of the new statutory forms, our clients execute an alternative form that we have drafted combining the health care power of attorney and living will provisions. This alternative combined form appears in the 2007 supplement to the BB&T ESTATE PLANNING FORMS MANUAL and as a PDF document on the Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson website, www.rbh.com, that can be downloaded from the MenuForms page . Historical Background Historically, the presumption in the law favored the continuance of life under all circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Quinlan: One Court's Answer to the Problem of Death with Dignity
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 34 | Issue 1 Article 15 Winter 1-1-1977 In Re Quinlan: One Court'S Answer To The Problem Of Death With Dignity Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Medical Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation In Re Quinlan: One Court'S Answer To The Problem Of Death With Dignity, 34 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 285 (1977), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol34/iss1/15 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN RE QUINLAN: ONE COURT'S ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF DEATH WITH DIGNITY On the night of April 15, 1975, Karen Ann Quinlan, aged 22, lapsed into a coma from which she still has not emerged.' On Septem- ber 10, 1975, her father applied to the Chancery division of the Supe- rior Court of New Jersey for letters of guardianship with the express power to authorize "the discontinuance of all extraordinary means of sustaining the vital processes of his daughter .. ."I This request was strenuously opposed by Karen's doctors, the hospita in which she was being treated, the county prosecutor, Karen's guardian ad litem, and the state of New Jersey, which had intervened on the basis of a state interest in the preservation of life.3 Bergen County Record, Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Die: the Broken Road from Quinlan to Schiavo
    The Right to Die: The Broken Road from Quinlan to Schiavo Annette E. Clark* I. INTRODUCTION On the thirtieth anniversary of the Quinlan case,1 it seems appropriate to go back in time and revisit the decision that started us down the road to developing what is now a large and complex body of right-to-die jurisprudence in this country. As a longtime bioethics professor, this opportunity to reacquaint myself with one of the seminal cases, to read it in something other than the edited and abbreviated form in which it appears in casebooks, has been an education in and of itself. It is a reminder that we should not lose sight of our beginnings when we try to understand where the path of right-to-die law has taken us and to anticipate where it will lead us next. The life and death of Karen Ann Quinlan and the Chancery Court and New Jersey Supreme Court decisions that flowed from her sad story provide a remarkable introduction to the right-to-die issues that have developed over the ensuing thirty years.2 Quinlan also provides a useful measure of the law’s progress over the last thirty years.3 The United States Supreme Court’s decision in the Cruzan case, which occurred approximately midway through this thirty-year period, and the 1.In re Quinlan, 348 A.2d 801, 806 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1975), modified and remanded, 355 A.2d 647 (N.J. 1976). 2. Those issues include: Whether the law should distinguish between the withdrawal of ordinary and extraordinary medical treatment? What is the proper role of religion and religious beliefs in the withdrawal
    [Show full text]
  • Baby Doe and Beyond
    California Western Law Review Volume 22 Number 1 Article 5 1985 "New" Rights for Handicapped Newborns: Baby Doe and Beyond Charles A. Phillips Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr Recommended Citation Phillips, Charles A. (1985) ""New" Rights for Handicapped Newborns: Baby Doe and Beyond," California Western Law Review: Vol. 22 : No. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss1/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Phillips: "New" Rights for Handicapped Newborns: Baby Doe and Beyond "New" Rights for Handicapped Newborns: Baby Doe and Beyond INTRODUCTION "[P]arents wouldn't be killing their own baby if it weren't for the baby's own good."' The article over which that caption appears is part of the recent national debate concerning withholding food and medical treatment from handicapped infants. The emotional issues involved have pitted the Reagan administration, championing the rights of the handicapped, against almost the entire medical community. Public and governmental concern culminated in the passage of the "Child Abuse Amendments of 1984" [hereinafter referred to as Amendments]. 2 The Amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 3 were signed into law on October 9, 1984 by President Reagan. Under the Amendments, states are required to adopt procedures that allow child protective service agencies to "pursue any legal remedies, including the authority to initiate legal proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards for Health Care Decision-Making: Legal and Practical Considerations A
    William Mitchell College of Law Mitchell Open Access Faculty Scholarship 2012 Standards for Health Care Decision-Making: Legal and Practical Considerations A. Kimberley Dayton William Mitchell College of Law, [email protected] Publication Information 2012 Utah Law Review 1329 (2012) Repository Citation Dayton, A. Kimberley, "Standards for Health Care Decision-Making: Legal and Practical Considerations" (2012). Faculty Scholarship. Paper 249. http://open.wmitchell.edu/facsch/249 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Mitchell Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Open Access. Standards for Health Care Decision-Making: Legal and Practical Considerations Abstract This Article explores the guardian’s role in making, or assisting the ward to make, health care decisions, and provides an overview of existing standards and tools that offer guidance in this area. Part II outlines briefly the legal decisions and statutory developments assuring patient autonomy in medical treatment, and shows how these legal texts apply to and structure the guardian’s role as health care decision-maker. Part III examines the range of legal and practical approaches to such matters as decision-making standards, determining the ward’s likely treatment preferences, and resolving conflicts between guardians and health care agents appointed by the ward. Part IV offers a general road map for legal and ethical decision-making in the health care arena. Finally, Part V offers
    [Show full text]
  • Aspectos Flosóficos Y Jurídicos Del Debate Sobre El Tema De La Eutanasia Y Del Suicidio Asistido
    Opción ISSN: 1012-1587 [email protected] Universidad del Zulia Venezuela FARALLI, Carla Aspectos flosóficos y jurídicos del debate sobre el tema de la eutanasia y del suicidio asistido. Una comparación entre los Estados Unidos de América e Italia Opción, vol. 32, núm. 79, abril-, 2016, pp. 13-31 Universidad del Zulia Maracaibo, Venezuela Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=31046684002 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Opción, Año 32, No. 79 (2016): 13 - 31 ISSN 1012-1587 Aspectos losócos y jurídicos del debate sobre el tema de la eutanasia y del suicidio asistido. Una comparación entre los Estados Unidos de América e Italia 1 Carla FARALLI 2 Presidente de la Asociación Italiana de Filosofía del Derecho, Italia C.I.R.S.F.I.D. - University of Bologna Via Galliera, 3 40121 - Bologna - ITALY http://www.unibo.it/docenti/carla.faralli Resumen El estudio toma como análisis algunos casos de eutanasia/suicidio asistido, vericados en los Estados Unidos, a partir de la mitad de los años ’70 y los compara con los dos casos de estudio líderes de la Bioética del nal de la vida en Italia: El caso Welby y el Caso Englaro. El primero está referido a un sujeto capaz de entender y querer pero no está en grado de realizar autónomamente su voluntad; el segundo está referido a un sujeto incapaz de entender y de querer.
    [Show full text]
  • Elder Law—My Life, My Choice
    Western New England Law Review Volume 41 41 (2019) Issue 2 Article 3 2019 ELDER LAW—MY LIFE, MY CHOICE Hyman G. Darling Andrew Adams Western New England University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Hyman G. Darling and Andrew Adams, ELDER LAW—MY LIFE, MY CHOICE, 41 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 287 (2019), https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol41/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Review & Student Publications at Digital Commons @ Western New England University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Western New England Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Western New England University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WESTERN NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW Volume 41 2019 Issue 2 ELDER LAW—MY LIFE, MY CHOICE Hyman G. Darling, Esq.* & Andrew Adams† As the most recent past president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) I have been involved in elder law for over thirty years, even before there was a sub-practice of estate planning called elder law. In fact, for estate planning, I recall when the primary document a client needed was a will. The required document has expanded and now includes a will, health proxy, power of attorney, a POLST form (Physician’s Order for Life Sustaining Treatment), sometimes a living will, and other various documents a client may desire, such as a cremation order, a pre-arranged burial, and the like.
    [Show full text]
  • Limitacion Esfuerzo Terapéutico .LET
    CALIDAD ASISTENCIAL EN EL F INAL DE LA V IDA E N EL P ACIENTE CR ØTICO . C O NSIDER ACIO NES ETICAS “ N on enim vivere sed bene vivere” L.A .S éneca “N o desdeñes la m uerte; antes bien, acógela gustosam ente, en la convicción de que esta es una de las cosas que la naturaleza quiere “ M arco A urelio II Edición M aster de B ioética Cátedra A ndaluza de B ioética Pedro R am os Fdez de Cañete 1 CONTENIDOS……………………………………………………………PAGINA INTRODUCCION………………………………………………………… 4 ALGUNOS CONCEPTOS BASICOS…………………………………. 11 EL PUNTO DE PARTIDA………………………………………………. 14 FINES DE LA MEDICINA EN EL SIGLO XXI………………………… 21 ¿ES ETICA LA LET?......................................................................... 27 LA AUTONOMÍA…………………………………………… . 27 Concepto de Dignidad y Muerte Digna………………………….. 29 La Planificación Estratégica de Decisiones……………………. 42 LA SOCIEDAD PLURAL: ………………………………………….. 46 1.- Puntos de vista religiosos…………………………………. 46 La Iglesia Católica…………………………….. 46 El Protestantismo……………………………… 49 El Judaísmo…………………………………… 51 El Islam………………………………………… 54 El Budismo…………………………………….. 56 2.- Diferencias culturales…………………………………….. 57 LA NO MALEFICIENCIA………………………… 59 PAPEL DE LA TECNOLOGÍA ………………………………… 59 CONSIDERACIONES SOBRE FUTILIDAD………. …………… 65 AGEISMO Y CALIDAD DE VIDA.............................................. 73 NO PONER O RETIRAR.......................................................... 78 EL PROBLEMA DE LA NUTRICIÓN E HIDRATACIÓN............................ 81 La NAH en el EV................................................86 2 La NAH en las
    [Show full text]
  • Before and After the Quinlan Decision Douglas W
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 65 | Issue 4 Article 4 1977 The Legal Aspects of the Right to Die: Before and After the Quinlan Decision Douglas W. Becker University of Kentucky Robert W. Fleming University of Kentucky Rebecca M. Overstreet University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Becker, Douglas W.; Fleming, Robert W.; and Overstreet, Rebecca M. (1977) "The Legal Aspects of the Right to Die: Before and After the Quinlan Decision," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 65 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol65/iss4/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE RIGHT TO DIE: BEFORE AND AFTER THE QUINLAN DECISION INTRODUCTION Recently the New Jersey Supreme Court confronted the complex legal and social issues surrounding an individual's "right to die."' The question whether life-prolonging measures should be utilized by the medical profession to prevent the natural death of one who is in an irreversible unconscious state was presented to the court in what many consider the most celebrated case of this decade. This question has burdened the medical profession since the development of life-prolonging devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Patient Agency, Terministic Screens, and the Role of the Public in the Cases of Karen Ann Quinlan and Terri Schiavo Ashley Marie Moore University of South Carolina
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 6-30-2016 Patient Agency, Terministic Screens, and The Role of the Public in the Cases of Karen Ann Quinlan and Terri Schiavo Ashley Marie Moore University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Moore, A. M.(2016). Patient Agency, Terministic Screens, and The Role of the Public in the Cases of Karen Ann Quinlan and Terri Schiavo. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/3500 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PATIENT AGENCY, TERMINISTIC SCREENS, AND THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE CASES OF KAREN ANN QUINLAN AND TERRI SCHIAVO by Ashley Marie Moore Bachelor of Arts Winthrop University, 2014 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts in English College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2016 Accepted by: Kevin Brock, Director of Thesis Byron Hawk, Reader Lacy Ford, Senior Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies © Copyright by Ashley Marie Moore, 2016 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to Drew Walker for believing in me and for his unwavering support throughout all of my endeavors. This thesis is further dedicated to Anna and Jim Moore for teaching me to work hard and believe in myself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Surrogates' Right to Terminate Life-Sustaining Treatment
    Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics September 2006, Volume 8, Number 9: 593-598. Health law The evolution of surrogates’ right to terminate life-sustaining treatment by Matthew Stonecipher Depending on one’s beliefs and philosophical leanings, removing life-sustaining treatment can be viewed as causing a patient’s death or allowing a patient to die. The dramatic and very public debate surrounding the medical decisions made for Terri Schiavo illuminate widespread societal disagreement about the moral consequences of withdrawing support. This divergence stems from the differing attitudes about life and death that inform people’s views regarding the kinds of end-of-life decisions that deserve legal protection. American courts have long protected patients’ right to consent to care, which necessarily implies a reciprocal right to refuse care [1]. The “right to die,” however, is a relatively recent concept made contentious by advances in life-sustaining medical technology. The movement to challenge the decisions made for Terri Schiavo threatened to destabilize end-of-life law that had developed over the last quarter of the 20th century, principally through the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion, In re Quinlan, articulated the interests at stake in a decision to remove life-sustaining care from an incapacitated person, and the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health balanced the right to die against the interests of the state. Although the extensive public discussion about Schiavo had little effect on right-to-die jurisprudence, it dramatically illustrated the range of difficulties that can complicate decision making concerning the termination of treatment.
    [Show full text]