Fashion and freedom: When artificial feeding should be withdrawn

G.J. Annas

American Journal of Public Health, 1985, vol. 75, issue 6, 685-688

Abstract: Appellate courts in three states have now ruled that there is no legal difference between artificial feeding and any other medical treatment and that therefore feeding may be refused by a competent patient or, in appropriate circumstances, by the family or guardian of an incompetent patient. Annas discusses the ethical and legal problems presented by these cases--California's Barber v. Superior Court, New Jersey's In re Conroy, and Massachusetts' In re Hier. He concludes that statutes are needed that would enhance the rights of competent individuals to refuse any treatment and to execute a living will or assign a durable power of attorney. Legislation is also needed to protect incompetents by providing a mechanism for legal guardians to refuse treatment.

Date: 1985
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.75.6.685

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.75.6.685_6

DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.75.6.685

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Alfredo Morabia

More articles in American Journal of Public Health from American Public Health Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F Baum ().