|Statement||James F. Childress|
|Contributions||United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||v, 70,  leaves :|
|Number of Pages||70|
Furthermore, there is no ethical or legal distinction between withholding a treatment and withdrawing a treatment after it has been initiated.6, 7, 8 In fact, withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions (eg, mechanical ventilation, hemo-dialysis, artificial hydration, and nutrition) from terminally ill patients is practiced widely. 9 Thus Cited by: The ethical analysis proceeds in three stages. First, the difference between neglectful omission and passive acquiescence is explained. Next, the two necessary conditions for any medical treatment, i.e., that it is medically indicated and that consent is obtained, are applied to Cited by: 13 Unlike assisted death, which requires patients to be screened for depression, patients can ask for treatment withdrawal even if they have major depression or are suicidal. 14 Furthermore Author: David Orentlicher. A general rationale is presented for withholding and withdrawing medical treatment in end-of-life situations, and an argument is offered for the moral irrelevance of the distinction, both in the context of pharmaceutical treatments, such as chemotherapy in cancer, and in the context of life-sustaining treatments, such as the artificial ventilator in lateral amyotrophic by: 6.
Request PDF | Controlled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: Ethical Issues in Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Therapy | Controlled donation after circulatory determination of death. Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment 1 ¢ 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 thics © by the Center for Practical Bioethics, Reviewed File Size: KB. JAMA. ;, Febru , Decisions to Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Moral Algorithm, Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD. Withholding or withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment tends to be very challenging for health care providers, patients, and their family members alike. When a patient’s life seems to be nearing its end, it is generally felt that the morally best approach is to try a new intervention, continue all treatments, attempt an experimental course of action, in short, do by:
A number of these noted non‐ethical differences; for instance, psychologically, withdrawal of treatment may suggest patient abandonment 7; withdrawal of treatment may be perceived as more obviously connected to a hastened death, 7 religious and secular ethical understandings may differ, and call for greater sensitivity in dealing with Cited by: Orentlicher, David, The Alleged Distinction between Euthanasia and the Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment: Conceptually Incoherent and Impossible to Maintain (March 8, ). University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. , No, 3, p. Cited by: 7. Ethical and legal issues concerning physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are very much on the public agenda in many jurisdictions. In this timely book L.W. Sumner addresses these issues within the wider context of palliative care for patients in the dying process. His ethical conclusion is that a bright line between assisted death and other widely accepted end-of-life practices, including the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, pain control through high-dose opioids, and terminal sedation, cannot be justified. In the course of the ethical argument many familiar themes are given careful and thorough Cited by: