Display options
Cite
Kendal E, Maher LJ. Should patients in a persistent vegetative state be allowed to die? Guidelines for a new standard of care in Australian hospitals. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33(2):148-66doi: 10.1007/s40592-015-0039-6.
Kendal, E., & Maher, L. J. (2015). Should patients in a persistent vegetative state be allowed to die? Guidelines for a new standard of care in Australian hospitals. Monash bioethics review, 33(2), 148-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0039-6
Kendal, Evie, and Maher, Laura-Jane. "Should patients in a persistent vegetative state be allowed to die? Guidelines for a new standard of care in Australian hospitals." Monash bioethics review vol. 33,2 (2015): 148-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0039-6
Kendal E, Maher LJ. Should patients in a persistent vegetative state be allowed to die? Guidelines for a new standard of care in Australian hospitals. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015 Jun-Sep;33(2):148-66. doi: 10.1007/s40592-015-0039-6. PMID: 26507136.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015 Jun-Sep;33(2):148-66. doi: 10.1007/s40592-015-0039-6.

Should patients in a persistent vegetative state be allowed to die? Guidelines for a new standard of care in Australian hospitals.

Monash bioethics review

Evie Kendal, Laura-Jane Maher

Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton, Australia. [email protected].
  2. Deakin University, Burwood, Australia. [email protected].

PMID: 26507136 DOI: 10.1007/s40592-015-0039-6

Abstract

In this article we will be arguing in favour of legislating to protect doctors who bring about the deaths of PVS patients, regardless of whether the death is through passive means (e.g. the discontinuation of artificial feeding and respiration) or active means (e.g. through the administration of pharmaceuticals known to hasten death in end-of-life care). We will first discuss the ethical dilemmas doctors and lawmakers faced in the more famous PVS cases arising in the US and UK, before exploring what the law should be regarding such patients, particularly in Australia. We will continue by arguing in favour of allowing euthanasia in the interests of PVS patients, their families, and finally the wider community, before concluding with some suggestions for how these ethical arguments could be transformed into a set of guidelines for medical practice in this area.

Keywords: Euthanasia; MCS; Minimally conscious state; PVS; Persistent vegetative state

References

  1. J Law Med. 2004 Feb;11(3):282-91 - PubMed
  2. Lancet. 1972 Apr 1;1(7753):734-7 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl. 2008;42:43-50 - PubMed
  4. J Law Med. 2011 Mar;18(3):523-44 - PubMed
  5. Cognition. 2011 Nov;121(2):275-80 - PubMed
  6. J Med Ethics. 1993 Jun;19(2):71-6 - PubMed
  7. Bioethics. 2012 Mar;26(3):157-63 - PubMed
  8. Neuroethics. 2014;7:1-9 - PubMed
  9. Lancet. 2014 Aug 9;384(9942):514-22 - PubMed
  10. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2005 Oct;18(4):303-10 - PubMed
  11. BMJ. 1991 Jul 13;303(6794):121 - PubMed
  12. J Med Ethics. 1999 Dec;25(6):473-6 - PubMed
  13. J Med Ethics. 2012 Jun;38(6):332-7 - PubMed
  14. Neurology. 2010 Nov 2;75(18 Suppl 1):S33-8 - PubMed
  15. J Neurol. 2011 Jun;258(6):1058-65 - PubMed
  16. Med Law Rev. 2014 Winter;22(1):26-47 - PubMed
  17. Arch Neurol. 1976 Sep;33(9):595-7 - PubMed
  18. Med J Aust. 2005 Sep 5;183(5):261-3 - PubMed
  19. Ethics Med. 1993 Autumn;9(3):40-4 - PubMed
  20. J Med Ethics. 1989 Sep;15(3):129-36 - PubMed
  21. J Med Ethics. 2009 Aug;35(8):508-11 - PubMed
  22. J Med Ethics. 2013 Sep;39(9):557-8 - PubMed
  23. All Engl Law Rep. 1993 Feb 4;[1993]1:821-96 - PubMed
  24. Med J Aust. 2014 Nov 3;201(9):545-7 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types