ArticleJournal of medical ethics2016
Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: family experiences.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Well-Being After Severe Brain Injury: What Counts as Good Recovery?Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2021Article
- Dying too soon or living too long? Withdrawing treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness after Re Y.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Deaths after feeding-tube withdrawal from patients in vegetative and minimally conscious states: A qualitative study of family experience.Palliative medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Judicial oversight of life-ending withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration in disorders of consciousness in the United Kingdom: A matter of life and death.The Medico-legal journal · 2017Article
- Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study ofJournal of medical ethics · 2017Article
- When 'Sanctity of Life' and 'Self-Determination' clash: Briggs versus Briggs [2016] EWCOP 53 - implications for policy and practice.Journal of medical ethics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Withdrawal of artificially delivered nutrition and hydration (ANH) from patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) requires judicial approval in England and Wales, even when families and healthcare professionals agree that withdrawal is in the patient's best interests. Part of the rationale underpinning the original recommendation for such court approval was the reassurance of patients' families, but there has been no research as to whether or not family members are reassured by the requirement for court proceedings or how they experience the process. The research reported here draws on in-depth narrative interviews with 10 family members (from five different families) of PVS patients who have been the subject of court proceedings for ANH-withdrawal. We analyse the empirical evidence to understand how family members perceive and experience the process of applying to the courts for ANH-withdrawal and consider the ethical and practice implications of our findings. Our analysis of family experience supports arguments grounded in economic and legal analysis that court approval should no longer be required. We conclude with some suggestions for how we might develop other more efficient, just and humane mechanisms for reviewing best interests decisions about ANH-withdrawal from these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.