Citation

Keownz J. Legal Stud. 2000; 20(1): 66-84.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, Society of Legal Scholars, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1748-121X.2000.tb00133.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In Bland1 the House of Lords held it lawful to withdraw tube-feeding from a patient in a 'persistent vegetative state' (pvs), even with intent to kill him. The British Medical Association (BMA) recently published guidance on the withholding and withdrawal of 'medical treatment', so defined as to include food and water delivered by tube. The guidance endorses the withholding/withdrawal of tube-delivered food and water not only from patients in pvs but also from other non-terminally ill patients, such as those with severe dementia or serious stroke. The underlying justification appears (as in Bland) to be that such lives lack worth. This article offers three major criticisms of the guidance. First, its argument that tube-feeding is medical treatment rather than basic care is weak. Secondly, its reasons for not treating or tube-feeding undermine the BMA's longstanding opposition to active euthanasia and active assisted suicide. Thirdly, it relies heavily on legal precedent at the expense of ethical reasoning. © 2000 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Language: en

Keywords

Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland; article; British Medical Association; cerebrovascular accident; Cerebrovascular Accident; Death and Euthanasia; dementia; Dementia; Enteral Nutrition; enteric feeding; ethics; Euthanasia, Passive; Great Britain; Guidelines; human; Humans; legal aspect; medical society; Organizational Policy; passive euthanasia; persistent vegetative state; Persistent Vegetative State; policy; practice guideline; quality of life; Quality of Life; Societies, Medical; socioeconomics; suicide; Suicide; treatment refusal; Treatment Refusal; treatment withdrawal; United Kingdom; Value of Life; Withholding Treatment