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 proposed 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 circumstances.
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.选用价格低廉的药品
B.选用给药便利的剂型
C.医患双方达成都可以接受的治疗目标
D.获得单位用药效果所投入的成本尽可能低
E.获得单位用药效果所承担的风险尽可能小
第3题
医患双方达成都可以接受的治疗目标属于()。
A.用药经济性
B.用药适当性
C.两者皆是
D.两者皆不是
E.用药安全性
第4题
医患双方达成都可以接受的治疗目标属于
A.用药经济性
B.用药适当性
C.两者皆是
D.两者皆不是
E.用药安全性
第5题
A.选用剂型与给药途径的合理性
B.处方用药与临床诊断的相符性
C.处方是否使用药品的规范名称
D.是否有重复给药现象
E.规定必须做皮试的药品,处方医师是否注明过敏试验及结果的判定
第9题
A.处方用药与临床诊断的相符性
B.剂量、用法的正确性
C.选用剂型与给药途径的合理性
D.药品金额的准确性
E.是否有重复给药现象
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!