But to make life or death decisions on behalf of a dying person unable to communicate his or her wishes is to enter a moral and legal minefield. Could a doctor be sued for withholding treatment and allowing someone to die — or for not allowing him or her to die? Could it ever be lawful to withhold food and water?
Legal moves are afoot which may settle these questions. Recently, a group on voluntary euthanasia pro- posed legislation to make documents known as "Advance Directives", or Living Wills, legally binding.
An Advance Directive sets out the kind of medical treatment a person wishes to receive, or not receive, should he or she ever be in a condition that prevents them expressing those wishes. Such documents, much in vogue in the US and some EU countries, are becoming increasingly popular in Britain.
A clear distinction must be drawn between actions requested by an Advance Directive, and active euthanasia, or "mercy killing". A doctor who took a positive step — such as giving a lethal injection — to help a patient die would, as the law stands, be guilty of murder or aiding and abetting suicide, depending On the circum- stances.
An Advance Directive, however, requests only passive euthanasia: the withholding of medical treatment aimed solely at sustaining the life of a patient who is terminally ill or a vegetable (in a vegetative state). The definition of medical treatment, in such circumstances, Can include food and water.
The enforceability of the Advance Directive Stems from the notion, long accepted in English law, that a person who is both old enough to make an informed decision and compos mentis, is entitled to refuse any medical treatment offered by a doctor, even if that refusal leads to the person's death. A doctor who forces treatment on a patient against his or her wishes is, therefore, guilty of an assault. Case law exists in the US and several EU countries that extends this right of autonomy over one's life to patients who write an Advance Directive refusing treatment and subsequently lose their reason. There is no reason, based on public policy or English case law, why an English court should treat previously made instructions any differently.
It will be a relief over the death of a friend or a relative if the friend or relative dies from ______.
A.a traffic accident
B.an acute infectious disease
C.heart attack
D.a three-year cancer
第1题
A. 子宫过度前屈易发生子宫后壁穿孔
B. B.子宫过度倾、屈易发生吸宫不全
C. C.严重的全身性疾病应尽快行人工流产手术
D. D.器械进入宫腔深度明显超过检查时子宫大小,即可诊断子宫穿孔
E. E.流产后过早性交易发生感染
第2题
A、子宫过度后屈,后壁容易穿孔
B、流产后的感染多为子宫内膜炎
C、宫体过度屈曲易发生吸宫不全
D、妊娠月份较大时,术中出血较多
E、导致迷走神经兴奋,发生人工流产综合反应
第3题
有关人工流产下列不恰当的是()。
A、负压应在400~500mmHg
B、吸管进出宫颈时不应带有负压
C、术前可肌内注射麦角新碱0.2mg
D、先吸刮子宫四壁,最后吸刮宫底
E、注意手术中子宫位置的改变
第4题
对于妊娠合并淋蔚下列哪项叙述是不恰当的
A、妊娠早期感染淋菌可导致感染性流产与人工流产后感染
B、以宫颈管受感染最为多见
C、妊娠中期的淋菌感染对妊娠预后没有影响
D、妊娠晚期合并淋病易引起胎膜早破
E、妊娠期感染淋菌易导致胎儿宫内感染
第5题
对于妊娠合并淋菌下列哪项叙述是不恰当的
A.妊娠早期感染淋菌可导致感染性流产与人工流产后感染
B.以宫颈管受感染最为多见
C.妊娠中期的淋菌感染对妊娠预后没有影响
D.妊娠晚期合并淋病易引起胎膜早破
E.妊娠期感染淋菌易导致胎儿宫内感染
第6题
对于孕早期药物流产,下列哪项是不恰当的
A、方法简单,无创伤
B、出血时间长和出血量多
C、适用于手术流产高危者
D、孕周在7周内者
E、由于诸多的优点,可代替人工流产
第7题
有关人工流产,下列哪项不正确()
A.子宫过度前屈易发生子宫后壁穿孔
B.子宫过度倾屈易发生吸宫不全
C.严重的全身性疾病应尽快行人工流产手术
D.器械进入官腔深度明显超过检查时子宫大小,即可诊断子宫穿孔
E.流产后过早性交易发生感染
为了保护您的账号安全,请在“上学吧”公众号进行验证,点击“官网服务”-“账号验证”后输入验证码“”完成验证,验证成功后方可继续查看答案!