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.