Decisions at the End of Life

D. Orentlicher, J. Sandor
{"title":"Decisions at the End of Life","authors":"D. Orentlicher, J. Sandor","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190846756.013.39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the similarities and differences between US and European legal thinking and jurisprudence regarding end-of-life medical care. In recent decades, courts and legislatures have increasingly respected the right to self-determination of patients or their families in deciding about the way people want to die. In most jurisdictions, patients may have unwanted medical treatment withheld or withdrawn, even when the treatment would be or is life-sustaining. Hospice and other palliative care are important alternatives, although in many cases, suffering may still persist. In a small but growing number of jurisdictions, patients may receive a lethal dose of medication to bring about death. Less recognized, but very important too, are cases in which patients request life-sustaining care that their health care providers consider “futile.” As with other rights, the right to make medical decisions is subject to limits. In deciding the extent of rights to make end-of-life decisions, the law has recognized that while seriously ill patients have the greatest stake in their medical care, family members, healthcare providers, and the state also have important interests. Accordingly, health law has had to balance a number of competing interests in determining when it is permissible to discontinue medical care or take other actions that will shorten life, and the scope of the right to decide has been much debated.","PeriodicalId":173189,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Health Law","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Health Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190846756.013.39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter examines the similarities and differences between US and European legal thinking and jurisprudence regarding end-of-life medical care. In recent decades, courts and legislatures have increasingly respected the right to self-determination of patients or their families in deciding about the way people want to die. In most jurisdictions, patients may have unwanted medical treatment withheld or withdrawn, even when the treatment would be or is life-sustaining. Hospice and other palliative care are important alternatives, although in many cases, suffering may still persist. In a small but growing number of jurisdictions, patients may receive a lethal dose of medication to bring about death. Less recognized, but very important too, are cases in which patients request life-sustaining care that their health care providers consider “futile.” As with other rights, the right to make medical decisions is subject to limits. In deciding the extent of rights to make end-of-life decisions, the law has recognized that while seriously ill patients have the greatest stake in their medical care, family members, healthcare providers, and the state also have important interests. Accordingly, health law has had to balance a number of competing interests in determining when it is permissible to discontinue medical care or take other actions that will shorten life, and the scope of the right to decide has been much debated.
生命终结时的决定
本章探讨了美国和欧洲关于临终医疗的法律思想和法理的异同。近几十年来,法院和立法机构越来越尊重病人或其家属在决定人们想要的死亡方式方面的自决权。在大多数司法管辖区,病人可能会被拒绝或撤销他们不想要的治疗,即使这种治疗将会或正在维持生命。临终关怀和其他姑息治疗是重要的选择,尽管在许多情况下,痛苦可能仍然存在。在少数但越来越多的司法管辖区,病人可能接受致命剂量的药物导致死亡。很少有人认识到,但也很重要的是,病人要求维持生命的护理,但他们的卫生保健提供者认为这是“徒劳的”。与其他权利一样,作出医疗决定的权利也受到限制。在决定临终决定的权利范围时,法律承认,虽然重病患者对其医疗保健拥有最大的利益,但家庭成员、医疗保健提供者和国家也有重要的利益。因此,卫生法必须平衡若干相互竞争的利益,以确定何时允许停止医疗护理或采取其他将缩短生命的行动,而关于决定权的范围一直存在很多争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信