Decision - Making At The End Of Life and The Incompetent Patient: A Comparative Approach

Samantha Halliday, Lars Witteck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In contrast to the situation in the Netherlands and Belgium, the legislatures in both England & Wales and Germany have not recognised that active euthanasia may be lawful in any circumstance. Nevertheless, the courts in both jurisdictions have held that passive euthanasia, that is the withdrawal or withholding of life-prolonging treatment, is perfectly lawful; indeed it will often constitute good medical practice.
This article adopts a comparative approach to assessing the manner in which decisions to withdraw/withhold life-prolonging treatment are made in relation to previously competent patients without a legally effective advance directive or a proxy decision-maker, considering the approaches adopted by the courts in England & Wales and Germany: the best interests and ‘presumed will’ approaches respectively. Due to the inherent drawbacks associated with each approach it is concluded that the best way forward would be for both jurisdictions to adopt a mixed approach, allowing the autonomy model to temper the best interests approach, recognising that the patient is an individual rather than simply an object of concern.
LanguageEnglish
Pages533-542
Number of pages10
JournalMedicine and Law
Volume22
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Wales
England
Germany
jurisdiction
Decision Making
Active Euthanasia
Advance Directives
decision making
euthanasia
Belgium
Proxy
withdrawal
Netherlands
decision maker
autonomy
Therapeutics

Cite this

Halliday, Samantha ; Witteck, Lars. / Decision - Making At The End Of Life and The Incompetent Patient: A Comparative Approach. In: Medicine and Law. 2003 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 533-542.
@article{adae33891e0e4c95b1e54aca350fa239,
title = "Decision - Making At The End Of Life and The Incompetent Patient: A Comparative Approach",
abstract = "In contrast to the situation in the Netherlands and Belgium, the legislatures in both England & Wales and Germany have not recognised that active euthanasia may be lawful in any circumstance. Nevertheless, the courts in both jurisdictions have held that passive euthanasia, that is the withdrawal or withholding of life-prolonging treatment, is perfectly lawful; indeed it will often constitute good medical practice.This article adopts a comparative approach to assessing the manner in which decisions to withdraw/withhold life-prolonging treatment are made in relation to previously competent patients without a legally effective advance directive or a proxy decision-maker, considering the approaches adopted by the courts in England & Wales and Germany: the best interests and ‘presumed will’ approaches respectively. Due to the inherent drawbacks associated with each approach it is concluded that the best way forward would be for both jurisdictions to adopt a mixed approach, allowing the autonomy model to temper the best interests approach, recognising that the patient is an individual rather than simply an object of concern.",
keywords = "Euthanasia, Consent, Incompetent patients, Best interests, Substituted judgement",
author = "Samantha Halliday and Lars Witteck",
year = "2003",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "533--542",
journal = "Medicine and Law",
issn = "0723-1393",
publisher = "Yozmot Ltd",
number = "3",

}

Decision - Making At The End Of Life and The Incompetent Patient: A Comparative Approach. / Halliday, Samantha; Witteck, Lars.

In: Medicine and Law, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2003, p. 533-542.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decision - Making At The End Of Life and The Incompetent Patient: A Comparative Approach

AU - Halliday, Samantha

AU - Witteck, Lars

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - In contrast to the situation in the Netherlands and Belgium, the legislatures in both England & Wales and Germany have not recognised that active euthanasia may be lawful in any circumstance. Nevertheless, the courts in both jurisdictions have held that passive euthanasia, that is the withdrawal or withholding of life-prolonging treatment, is perfectly lawful; indeed it will often constitute good medical practice.This article adopts a comparative approach to assessing the manner in which decisions to withdraw/withhold life-prolonging treatment are made in relation to previously competent patients without a legally effective advance directive or a proxy decision-maker, considering the approaches adopted by the courts in England & Wales and Germany: the best interests and ‘presumed will’ approaches respectively. Due to the inherent drawbacks associated with each approach it is concluded that the best way forward would be for both jurisdictions to adopt a mixed approach, allowing the autonomy model to temper the best interests approach, recognising that the patient is an individual rather than simply an object of concern.

AB - In contrast to the situation in the Netherlands and Belgium, the legislatures in both England & Wales and Germany have not recognised that active euthanasia may be lawful in any circumstance. Nevertheless, the courts in both jurisdictions have held that passive euthanasia, that is the withdrawal or withholding of life-prolonging treatment, is perfectly lawful; indeed it will often constitute good medical practice.This article adopts a comparative approach to assessing the manner in which decisions to withdraw/withhold life-prolonging treatment are made in relation to previously competent patients without a legally effective advance directive or a proxy decision-maker, considering the approaches adopted by the courts in England & Wales and Germany: the best interests and ‘presumed will’ approaches respectively. Due to the inherent drawbacks associated with each approach it is concluded that the best way forward would be for both jurisdictions to adopt a mixed approach, allowing the autonomy model to temper the best interests approach, recognising that the patient is an individual rather than simply an object of concern.

KW - Euthanasia

KW - Consent

KW - Incompetent patients

KW - Best interests

KW - Substituted judgement

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 533

EP - 542

JO - Medicine and Law

T2 - Medicine and Law

JF - Medicine and Law

SN - 0723-1393

IS - 3

ER -