Why the BMA guidance on CANH is dangerous

Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (10):690-690 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This personal view draws attention to the lack of regard, given by the BMA in its new guidance, to the symptomatic benefit of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients who are not imminently dying. This article aims to identify how ignoring symptomatic benefit is a serious oversight and cause for concern given that this document, endorsed by the General Medical Council and courts, is created with the purpose of providing a framework for best interests decision-making. The new BMA guidance on CANH, which is endorsed by the GMC,1 follows up on the Supreme Court case of An NHS Trust v Y,2 that any removal of CANH from a patient in prolonged disorder of consciousness no longer requires the approval of the court unless there is disagreement or the decision is finely balanced. The decision in …

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,642

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y.Charles Foster - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (1):3-7.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-07-30

Downloads
16 (#227,957)

6 months
21 (#723,368)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y.Charles Foster - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (1):3-7.

Add more references