In 2006 the University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV) introduced an institutional directive specifying the conditions for assisted suicide, in accordance with professional guidelines and the recommendation of the Swiss National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics that every acute care hospital take up a position on this subject. Methods: 18-months follow-up analysis of patient requests and application of the directive by hospital staff. Results: Of the 54000 patients hospitalised between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007, six requests were recorded, all within the first 7 months after introduction of the directive and in the context of severe and life-threatening diseases. However, only one of the six patients, living in a nursing home belonging to the hospital, died by assisted suicide. The time distribution of requests seems to be associated with initial media coverage of the assisted-suicide directive’s introduction.
Following advance directives in emergencies throws up some complicated problems, as Stephen Bonner and colleagues found. We asked an emergency doctor, a medical defence adviser, and an ethicist what they would do in the circumstances
Sir Terry Pratchett has said he's ready to be a test case for assisted suicide "tribunals" which could give people legal permission to end their lives. The author, who has Alzheimer's, says he wants a tribunal set up to help those with incurable diseases end their lives with help from doctors. A poll for BBC One's Panorama suggests most people support assisted suicide for someone who is terminally ill.
In this article, I consider whether the advance directive of a person in minimally conscious state ought to be adhered to when its prescriptions conflict with her current wishes. I argue that an advance directive can have moral significance after its issuer has succumbed to minimally conscious state. I also defend the view that the patient can still have a significant degree of autonomy. Consequently, I conclude that her advance directive ought not to be applied. Then I briefly assess whether considerations pertaining to respecting the patient's autonomy could still require obedience to the desire expressed in her advance directive and arrive at a negative answer.
Doctors will be allowed forcibly to sedate the 55-year-old woman in her home and take her to hospital for surgery. She could be forced to remain on a ward afterwards. The case has sparked an intense ethical and legal debate. Experts questioned whether lawyers and doctors should be able to override the wishes of patients and whether force was ever justified in providing medical care.
A cancer patient who has a phobia of hospitals should be forced to undergo a life-saving operation if necessary, a High Court judge has ruled. Sir Nicholas Wall, sitting at the Court of Protection, ruled doctors could forcibly sedate the 55-year-old woman - referred to as PS. PS lacked the capacity to make decisions about her health, he said. Doctors at her NHS Foundation trust had argued PS would die if her ovaries and fallopian tubes were not removed. Evidence presented to Sir Nicholas, head of the High Court Family Division, said PS was diagnosed with uterine cancer last year.
We aim to improve the medical care and understanding of disorders of consciousness following an acute insult such as coma, vegetative state, minimally conscious state or locked-in syndrome. Coma Science Group Cyclotron Research Center & Neurology Dept University of Liège
A majority of surveyed Flemish physicians appear to accept physician-assisted dying in children under certain circumstances and favour an amendment to the euthanasia law to include minors. The approach favoured is one of assessing decision-making capacity rather than setting arbitrary age limits. These stances, and their connection with actual end-of-life practices, may encourage policy-makers to develop guidelines for medical end-of-life practices in minors that address specific challenges arising in this patient group.
Medical end-of-life decisions are frequent in minors in Flanders, Belgium. Whereas parents were involved in most end-of-life decisions, the patients themselves were involved much less frequently, even when the ending of their lives was intended. At the time of decision making, patients were often comatose or the physicians deemed them incompetent or too young to be involved.
The 30-year-old, known only as SB, could die without emergency treatment for aplastic anemia, a condition in which her bone marrow does not reproduce enough new blood cells. The Court of Protection has now ruled that doctors can restrain SB and force her to undergo the arduous but potentially life-saving treatment, which is administered through a vein in the heart and lasts for five days. SB has been detained under the Mental Health Act. Family Division judge Mrs Justice Hogg ruled that the patient did not have the capacity to make up her own mind over whether to undergo the treatment.
A high court judge in England has ordered that doctors can force a woman without the capacity to decide for herself to have lifesaving treatment for aplastic anaemia. Mrs Justice Hogg made the ruling in the Court of Protection after an unnamed NHS trust applied to the court with the backing of the Official Solicitor, who looks after the interests of those lacking capacity. The judge said the 30 year old woman, named only as SB, who is detained under the Mental Health Act, has a serious psychiatric disorder and lacks the capacity to decide for herself whether or not to have the potentially lifesaving treatment.
A controversial court that still holds its hearing in private will decide tomorrow whether a pregnant woman with learning difficulties should be forcibly sterilised once she gives birth. Health workers from a local NHS trust and council, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have asked the secretive Court of Protection to decide whether the woman should be forced to have her fallopian tubes cut to stop her falling pregnant again.
Increasing understanding of the brain and associated advances in technologies to study it will enable improved treatment of neurodegenerative diseases & mental illnesses. But these advances will also increase our insights into normal human behaviour and mental wellbeing, as well as giving the possibility of other enhancement, manipulation, and even degradation of brain function. These developments are likely to provide significant benefits for society, and they will also raise major social and ethical issues due to wide ranging applications. Brain research is likely to have implications for a diverse range of public policy areas such as health, education, law, & security. More broadly progress in neuroscience is going to raise questions about personality, identity, responsibility, & liberty. Brain Waves explores the potential & the limitations of neuroscience insights for policymaking, as well as the benefits and the risks posed by applications of neuroscience and neurotechnologies.