Article Text
PDFWithdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
Is it better to be minimally conscious than vegetative?
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Contributors Draft prepared by DW and JS providing substantive comments and redrafts. Both authors approve the final draft.
-
Funding DW was supported for this work by an early career fellowship from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [1016641].
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: ethical, legal and practical dilemmas
- Should we continue treatment for M? The benefits of living
- A matter of life and death: controversy at the interface between clinical and legal decision-making in prolonged disorders of consciousness
- Should we respect precedent autonomy in life-sustaining treatment decisions?
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- A matter of life and death
- Withdrawing and withholding artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a minimally conscious state: Re: M and its repercussions
- Functional neuroimaging and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from vegetative patients