Cui bono? 'Withholding Treatment from Violent and Abusive Patients in NHS Trusts: "We Don't Have to Take This"'

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herschel Prins
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 729-732
Author(s):  
Pieter J. J. Sauer

Modern technology makes it possible to keep more sick, extremely small, and vulnerable neonates alive. Many neonatologists in the Netherlands believe they should be concerned not only about the rate of survival of their patients, but also about the way the graduates of their care do, in fact, survive beyond the neonatal period. In most cases, we use all available methods to keep newborns alive. However, in some instances there is great concern about the quality of life, if the newborn should survive; here questions do arise about continuing or withholding treatment. In this commentary, I present my impression of the opinions held by a majority of practicing neonatologists in the Netherlands, as well as some personal thoughts and ideas. Recently, a committee convened by the Ministers of Justice and Health in the Netherlands issued an official report regarding the practice of euthanasia and the rules of medical practice when treatment is withheld.1 In this report of more than 250 pages, only 2 pages focus on the newborn. The following conclusions were made in this small section of the report. In almost one half of the instances of a fatal outcome in a neonatal intensive care unit in the Netherlands, discussions about sustaining or withholding treatment did take place at some stage of the hospital stay. A consideration of the future quality of life was always included in the discussion. The committee agreed with doctors interviewed for the report that there are circumstances in which continuation of intensive care treatment is not necessarily in the best interest of a neonate.


BMJ ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 282 (6268) ◽  
pp. 925-926 ◽  

BMJ ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 282 (6270) ◽  
pp. 1154-1154
Author(s):  
T. Hamblin

1980 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 2-20
Author(s):  
Richard Sherlock

1996 ◽  
Vol 74 (5) ◽  
pp. 686-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon M. Landhäusser ◽  
Ross W. Wein ◽  
Petra Lange

Low soil temperatures and water availability are thought to be major factors determining the distribution of tree species at the arctic tree line. A comparative study examined the response of Betula papyrifera, Populus balsamifera, and Picea mariana seedlings to different soil temperatures and drought regimes in a growth chamber experiment. Morphological and ecophysiological responses (net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance to water vapour, and residual conductance) of these tree line tree species were measured and compared. Mean biomass accumulation of the deciduous species was greater than that of Picea mariana with increasing soil temperatures. Root biomass showed an increase of 30% in the three species between the soil temperatures of 3 and 15 °C. Response of ecophysiological variables to increased soil temperature was greater in B. papyrifera and Populus balsamifera than in Picea mariana. In a second experiment, drought-preconditioned B. papyrifera and Populus balsamifera seedlings were subjected to a 6-day water-withholding treatment. Drought decreased shoot mass and increased the root to shoot ratio equally in B. papyrifera and Populus balsamifera. Drought-preconditioned B. papyrifera and Populus balsamifera seedlings responded differently to the 6-day water-withholding treatment. Betula papyrifera used a water-conserving strategy and maintained low net assimilation rates and low water use after drought preconditioning, whereas in Populus balsamifera greater net assimilation rates were associated with drought preconditioning. These results are consistent with the distribution of these three tree species at the arctic tree line. Keywords: Picea mariana, Populus balsamifera, Betula papyrifera, drought preconditioning, soil temperature, arctic tree line.


Author(s):  
Robert M. Veatch ◽  
Amy Haddad ◽  
E. J. Last

Avoidance of killing is a moral consideration that arises in health care controversies involving the notions that human life is sacred or that killing is morally wrong. Pharmacists may find themselves in positions where they must reconcile the idea that generally killing is a harm to be avoided based on the principle of nonmaleficence with the idea that death might be perceived by a particular patient as a beneficial outcome. This chapter explores the principle of avoidance of killing, highlights differences between active, merciful killing and decisions to forgo treatment, and discusses the concept of proportionality. The cases presented involve topics such as withholding treatment and withdrawing treatment and direct versus indirect killing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document