Ethics briefing

Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (2):147-148 (2019)

Authors
Olivia J. Lines
Birkbeck College
Abstract
The British Medical Association and Royal College of Physicians have published new guidance, endorsed by the General Medical Council, on decision-making about clinically assisted nutrition and hydration and adults who lack capacity to consent. The development of the guidance follows a series of legal cases which has created confusion about the precise circumstances in which an application to the court is required before CANH is withdrawn which has culminated with the decision of the Supreme Court in National Health Service Trust versus Y. 1 This confirmed that there is no requirement to go to court, providing there is agreement as to the patient’s best interests, the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 have been observed, and the relevant professional guidance has been followed. The new guidance covers all decisions to start, restart, continue, or stop providing CANH in patients who are not imminently dying, in circumstances where CANH is the primary life-sustaining treatment being provided. It goes beyond the category of patients in permanent vegetative state or minimally conscious state who have previously been the subject of court applications, and also covers decisions for patients with neurodegenerative conditions and patients who have suffered a sudden onset brain injury in addition to having multiple comorbidities or general frailty which is likely to impact on life expectancy. It provides a clear statement of doctors’ legal responsibilities, covers the importance of robust best interests’ assessments and sets out the process to be followed for sufficient independent scrutiny of decisions. In light of some of the identified problems with decisions about CANH, a particular focus of the guidance is on the importance of regular best interests’ assessments, and it provides detailed practical guidance about how to approach these. The development of …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2019-105350
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,883
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Ethics briefing.Sophie Brannan, Ruth Campbell, Martin Davies, Veronica English, Rebecca Mussell & Julian C. Sheather - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics Recent Issues 44 (4):285-286.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Withholding Artificial Nutrition and Hydration.Imogen Goold - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):541-542.
The Rebirth of Medical Paternalism: An NHS Trust V Y.Charles Foster - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (1):3-7.
Burdens of ANH Outweigh Benefits in the Minimally Conscious State.W. Glannon - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (9):551-552.
Moral Authority and Proxy Decision-Making.Anthony Wrigley - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (3):631-647.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005.Julian Sheather - 2006 - Clinical Ethics 1 (1):33-36.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-01-25

Total views
3 ( #1,179,724 of 2,266,258 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #850,735 of 2,266,258 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature