Ethics briefing
Charlotte Wilson, Veronica English, Julian C. Sheather, Ruth Campbell, Olivia Lines & Sophie Brannan
Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (2):147-148 (2019)
Abstract
The British Medical Association and Royal College of Physicians have published new guidance, endorsed by the General Medical Council, on decision-making about clinically assisted nutrition and hydration and adults who lack capacity to consent. The development of the guidance follows a series of legal cases which has created confusion about the precise circumstances in which an application to the court is required before CANH is withdrawn which has culminated with the decision of the Supreme Court in National Health Service Trust versus Y. 1 This confirmed that there is no requirement to go to court, providing there is agreement as to the patient’s best interests, the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 have been observed, and the relevant professional guidance has been followed. The new guidance covers all decisions to start, restart, continue, or stop providing CANH in patients who are not imminently dying, in circumstances where CANH is the primary life-sustaining treatment being provided. It goes beyond the category of patients in permanent vegetative state or minimally conscious state who have previously been the subject of court applications, and also covers decisions for patients with neurodegenerative conditions and patients who have suffered a sudden onset brain injury in addition to having multiple comorbidities or general frailty which is likely to impact on life expectancy. It provides a clear statement of doctors’ legal responsibilities, covers the importance of robust best interests’ assessments and sets out the process to be followed for sufficient independent scrutiny of decisions. In light of some of the identified problems with decisions about CANH, a particular focus of the guidance is on the importance of regular best interests’ assessments, and it provides detailed practical guidance about how to approach these. The development of …DOI
10.1136/medethics-2019-105350
My notes
Similar books and articles
Ethics briefing.Martin Davies, Ruth Campbell, Sophie Brannan, Veronica English, Rebecca Mussell & Julian C. Sheather - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (10):725-726.
Nonconsensual withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in prolonged disorders of consciousness: authoritarianism and trustworthiness in medicine.Mohamed Y. Rady & Joseph L. Verheijde - 2014 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9:16.
The best interests of persistently vegetative patients: to die rather that to live?Tak Kwong Chan & George Lim Tipoe - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (3):202-204.
Withholding artificial nutrition and hydration.Imogen Goold - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):541-542.
One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent.S. Fovargue & J. Miola - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (8):494-497.
Commentary on Charles Foster’s ‘The rebirth of medical paternalism: an NHS Trust v Y’.Derick T. Wade - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (1):8-9.
Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions.Julian C. Sheather - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):543-546.
The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y.Charles Foster - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (1):3-7.
Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?Julian C. Sheather - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):547-550.
Making decisions about life-sustaining medical treatment in patients with dementia.Arthur R. Derse - 1999 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 20 (1):55-67.
Professional guidelines on Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: introduction.Gillian Romano-Critchley & Ann Sommerville - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (5):308-309.
Burdens of ANH outweigh benefits in the minimally conscious state.Walter Glannon - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):551-552.
Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: commentary 2: Some concerns.Steven Luttrell - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (5):319-320.
Moral Authority and Proxy Decision-Making.Anthony Wrigley - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):631-647.
Analytics
Added to PP
2019-01-25
Downloads
8 (#989,013)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
2019-01-25
Downloads
8 (#989,013)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Ethics briefing.Charlotte Wilson, Sophie Brannan, Julian C. Sheather, Ruth Campbell, Veronica English & Rebecca Mussell - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (10):684-686.
References found in this work
Ethics briefing.Sophie Brannan, Ruth Campbell, Martin Davies, Veronica English, Rebecca Mussell & Julian C. Sheather - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics Recent Issues 44 (4):285-286.
Ethics briefing.Sophie Brannan, Ruth Campbell, Martin Davies, Veronica English, Rebecca Mussell & Julian C. Sheather - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (9):653-654.
Ethics briefing.Martin Davies, Sophie Brannan, Ruth Campbell, Veronica English, Rebecca Mussell & Julian Sheather - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (6):423-424.
Ethics briefing.Martin Davies, Ruth Campbell, Sophie Brannan, Veronica English, Rebecca Mussell & Julian C. Sheather - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (6):429-430.
Ethics briefing.Martin Davies, Sophie Brannan, Ruth Campbell, Veronica English, Rebecca Mussell & Julian Sheather - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (3):188-190.