Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T15:45:14.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trying Not to Talk Forever: A Tool for Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Susan M. Wolf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

George Annas’ review finds most of what is in the Hastings Center’s Guidelines on the Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Care of the Dying “solid.” He takes no issue with the major substantive points. The fundamental premise of the book—that patients’ interests must be protected and their decision-making authority defended—is a view Professor Annas has long championed as well.

Despite this basic agreement, Annas’ criticisms would be significant ones if the Guidelines were what he presents them to be. But they clearly are not. As the Guidelines themselves state: These are ethics guidelines; they are not legal guidelines. They are an attempt to offer practical and reasonably concise suggestions for how to make decisions; they are no substitute for the literature on the pros and cons of different approaches to the termination of treatment. They are meant to provoke a necessary process of debate within a health care institution; they are not the final moral truth.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Winter 1987 , pp. 248 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The author would like to thank Daniel Callahan, Alex Capron, Joanne Lynn, and Alan Weisbard for helpful discussion, and the Greenwall Foundation for support.Google Scholar
Annas, G, Trying to live forever, Law, Medicine & Health Care 1988, 15(4): 242.Google Scholar
The Hastings Center, Guidelines on the termination of life-sustaining treatment and the care of the dying, Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., 1987 (hereinafter cited as “Guidelines”).Google Scholar
Annas, , supra note 1, at 244.Google Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Deciding to forego life-sustaining treatment, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983 (hereinafter cited as “Deciding to Forego”).Google Scholar
Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals, New and revised standards approved: Withholding resuscitative services, JCAH Perspectives 1987, 7(5/6): 5.Google Scholar
See, for example, Meisel, A et al., Hospital guidelines for deciding about life-sustaining treatment: Dealing with health “limbo,” Critical Care Medicine 1986, 14(3): 239.Google Scholar
See, for example, Life-sustaining treatment guidelines ratified by medical, legal professions, LACMA Physician 1986, 116(2): 21 (hereinafter cited as “LA County Guidelines”).Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at iii.Google Scholar
Id.: 16–34.Google Scholar
LA County Guidelines, supra note 7.Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at 18, 39–39. 46–48, 59–60. 65–66, 71–73, 79–80, 100, 109–9, 119–20.Google Scholar
Id.: 127–39.Google Scholar
See, for example, Deciding to Forego, supra note 4, at 493–545; President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Defining death, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981, at 159–66 (hereinafter cited as “Defining Death”).Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at iii. 15. Id.Google Scholar
See, for example, id.: iii, 25, 59, 119.Google Scholar
Id.: 159–59.Google Scholar
Annas, supra note 1, at 244.Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at 3.Google Scholar
Id.: 41.Google Scholar
Id.: 59–60, 62.Google Scholar
Annas, supra note 1, at 245.Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at 158.Google Scholar
Deciding to Forego, supra note 4, at 126.Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at 23.Google Scholar
Id.: 31.Google Scholar
Id.: 23.Google Scholar
Id.: 32.Google Scholar
Id.: 65–66.Google Scholar
Id.: 67–68.Google Scholar
Id.: 87.Google Scholar
Id.: 88.Google Scholar
Defining Death, supra note 13, at 46–47 (emphasis in the original).Google Scholar
In re Bowman, 617 P.2d 731, 732 (Wash. 1980) (en banc).Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at 87.Google Scholar
Id.: 4.Google Scholar
Defining Death, supra note 13, at 47.Google Scholar
Id.: 7–8.Google Scholar
Abram, M, The need for uniform law on the determination of death, New York Law School Law Review 1982, 27(4): 1193–94.Google Scholar
Defining Death, supra note 13, at 159.Google Scholar
Guidelines, supra note 2, at 91–98.Google Scholar
Id.: 86.Google Scholar
Id.: 2.Google Scholar