Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
If after 10 days, no such provider can be found, the hospital and physician may unilaterally withhold or withdraw the therapy that has been determined to be futile. The party who disagrees may appeal to the relevant state court and ask the judge to grant an extension of time before treatment is withdrawn.
The MOLST Program is a New York State initiative that facilitates end-of-life medical decision-making. One goal of the MOLST Program is to ensure that decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment are made in accordance with the patient's wishes, or, if the patient's wishes are not reasonably known and cannot with reasonable diligence be ascertained, in accordance with the ...
The difficulty with the issue of non-treatment lies in the borderline with euthanasia, which is punishable by law in most countries. Euthanasia designates a practice (action or omission) whose aim is to intentionally bring about the death of a person, in principle suffering from an incurable disease which inflicts intolerable suffering, particularly by a doctor or under his or her control.
There is a bedside process to secure consent to treatment, or a decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment, for a patient who lacks capacity and does not have any family member or friend to act as surrogate decision-maker. Ethics Review Committees. [38]
In the case law to date in 1988, the courts decided that a decision to withhold or withdraw treatment was only for the physician to make, not the courts. However, the Manitoba court decided that given the scarcity of related cases and how none of them considered the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it would try the case. Previous courts ...
Euthanasia efforts were revived during the 1960s and 1970s, under the right-to-die rubric, physician assisted death in liberal bioethics, and through advance directives and do not resuscitate orders. Several major court cases advanced the legal rights of patients, or their guardians, to withdraw medical support with the expected outcome of death.
Quinlan's case continues to raise important questions in moral theology, bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship and civil rights. Her case has affected the practice of medicine and law around the world. A significant outcome of her case was the development of formal ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices. [1]
The court ruled that therapeutic privilege can be upheld where the patient is not mentally impaired, but may refuse beneficial treatment because they do not fully understand it considering the following conditions are met; ‘(a) the benefit of the treatment to the patient; (b) the relatively low level of risk presented; and (c) the probability ...