Abstract

The traditional distinction between ordinary, i.e., obligatory means to preserve life and extraordinary, non-obligatory means is an especially useful tool for HECs in today's secular pluralist health care system, because it gives factors that can override the prima facie good of preserving the patient's life. I first indicate the need for such a tool. I then demonstrate the present misunderstanding of the distinction and give its proper understanding. Finally, I show the applicability of the distinction for HEC deliberations about three important types of cases: the conscious, irreversibly but not terminally ill patient who requests cessation of curative treatment; the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration to permanently vegetative patients; and the allotment of intensive care and other scarce medical resources