Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8366321

Advance directives for voluntary euthanasia: a volatile combination?

L P Francis
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Defenders of patient autonomy have successfully supported the legal adoption of advance directives. More recently, some defenders of patient autonomy have also supported the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia. This paper explores the wisdom of combining both practices. If euthanasia were to become legal, should it be permitted by advance directives? The paper juxtaposes the most significant doubts about advance directives, with the most significant doubts about euthanasia. It argues that the doubts together raise more concern about the combined practices than about either euthanasia or advance directives separately. Not all cases of voluntary euthanasia by advance directive are equally problematic, however. Advance directives can help in the defense of euthanasia for patients who make the request in advance and reaffirm it under circumstances of severe suffering.

Explore related subjects

Advance DirectivesBrain DiseasesComprehensionEuthanasiaEuthanasia, Active, VoluntaryHumansIntentionLiving WillsPersonal AutonomyPersonhoodRisk AssessmentSocial ValuesStress, PsychologicalUnited StatesVulnerable PopulationsWedge ArgumentWithholding TreatmentAnalytical ApproachDeath and EuthanasiaJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L P Francis. 1993. Advance directives for voluntary euthanasia: a volatile combination?. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp%2F18.3.297

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

"Not-for-resuscitation" orders in Australian public hospitals: policies, standardised order forms and patient information leaflets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and content of policies, standardised order forms (SOFs) and patient information leaflets (PILs) pertaining to "not-for-resuscitation" (NFR) orders in Australian public hospitals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional postal survey conducted across Australia from August to December 2005, using a one-page questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Directors of Medical, Nursing or Clinical Services of all public hospitals in Australia with 60 or more beds, excluding psychiatric, military and private hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of documented NFR policies, by hospital characteristics, and content of these policies, SOFs and PILs. RESULTS: 222 hospitals were surveyed, and 157 responded (71%). Of these, 85 (54%) had NFR policies, 62 (39%) had SOFs, and four (3%) had PILs. Hospitals with more than 200 beds were more likely to have NFR policies than those with 60-200 beds (P = 0.04). More metropolitan than rural hospitals had NFR policies (P = 0.01). More hospitals with 60-100 beds had SOFs than hospitals with 101-200 beds (P = 0.03). "NFR" was defined in 53% of policies, while 97% of policies explicitly stated where NFR orders were to be documented, 89% stated who was allowed to make them, 37% stated that advanced care directives ("living wills") were to be respected, and 89% stated that competent patients should be involved in discussions regarding their NFR status. The most common items noted in SOFs were the name and signature of the issuing medical practitioner (92%) and documentation of the discussion with the patient (81%). CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in the content of hospital policies, SOFs and PILs pertaining to NFR orders. Aspects of current policies show room for improvement.

Advance Directives↗
PubMed2006

Modifications to advanced life support in renal failure.

The outcome of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been reported to be worse in patients with renal failure compared with those with normal renal function. It is likely that this increased mortality may be at least partly attributable to sub-optimal and highly variable treatment strategies used in cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure, but this issue has not previously been explored. Such patients undoubtedly pose a challenge to advanced life support (ALS) providers, and renal unit staff are not trained to provide specialist advice after a patient has sustained a cardiac arrest. There are few studies investigating the epidemiology, safety or outcome of cardiac arrest in patients with renal failure and there are no generally accepted resuscitation guidelines for this special circumstance. In this article we discuss the unique problems of resuscitating patients with renal failure and propose a suitable management strategy.

Advance Directives↗