Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Part 1 THE EXTREMELY PRETERM INFANT: EPIDEMIOLOGY, PERCEPTIONS, AND PRACTICES
- Part 2 BIOETHICS
- Part 3 REPORTS, OFFICIAL OPINIONS, AND GUIDELINES
- Part 4 THE LAW
- 30 Introduction
- 31 U.S. Law
- 32 The United Kingdom
- 33 Canada
- 34 Australia
- 35 Japan
- 36 Italy, Germany, and Poland
- 37 France
- 38 The Netherlands
- Part 5 EPILOGUE: TRUTH, TRUST, AND BOUNDARIES
- References
- Index
37 - France
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Part 1 THE EXTREMELY PRETERM INFANT: EPIDEMIOLOGY, PERCEPTIONS, AND PRACTICES
- Part 2 BIOETHICS
- Part 3 REPORTS, OFFICIAL OPINIONS, AND GUIDELINES
- Part 4 THE LAW
- 30 Introduction
- 31 U.S. Law
- 32 The United Kingdom
- 33 Canada
- 34 Australia
- 35 Japan
- 36 Italy, Germany, and Poland
- 37 France
- 38 The Netherlands
- Part 5 EPILOGUE: TRUTH, TRUST, AND BOUNDARIES
- References
- Index
Summary
In France, if a child is born alive and able to sustain life it has a legal existence. Ability to sustain life at birth is defined as at least 22 weeks' gestation and a minimum weight of 500g.(243) Reported legal cases involving foregoing of life-sustaining treatment for an extremely preterm infant have not occurred, as far as I could ascertain. The Code of Medical Deontology, which is legally binding, warns physicians to “avoid any unreasonable obstinacy in pursuing investigations and treatments.” This presumably refers to treatments that might be viewed as medically ineffective,(386) but Article 37 specifically states that “a dying person must be attended until the last, and given appropriate care and suitable support to preserve the quality of life which is ending. A patient's dignity should be protected, and his or her entourage comforted.”(379)
Article 223–6(2) of the criminal code imposes a duty to rescue and proscribes deliberately exposing a person to the danger of death or injury (223–1). In 1996, a physician who extubated and withheld resuscitation from a patient with no chance of survival was convicted of involuntary homicide by the Court of Appeal of Rouen. The doctor was described as acting “against all logic, medical ethics, and accepted rules of good practice.”(379, 387) This decision is in accord with Article 38 of the Code of Medical Deontology, which states that a physician “has no right to bring about death.”(379) This judgment is presumably a statement against euthanasia by the court.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Extreme PrematurityPractices, Bioethics and the Law, pp. 179 - 180Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006