This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (14)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Part I

Daniel G. Suber, JD; William J. Tabor, JD

JAMA. 1982;248(18):2250-2251.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

As a result of the prodigious technological advances of modern medicine, physicians are increasingly confronted with the question of when, and under what circumstances, life-sustaining care should be withdrawn from terminally ill patients. In the wake of recent court decisions recognizing patients' rights to refuse medical treatment, new complexities have been introduced into the process of deciding whether so-called "extraordinary measures" should be used to prolong life.

Chief among these is the problem of determining who, in addition to the physician, should be involved in making such decisions. As the dilemma often arises in the context of treatment of patients who are incapacitated or mentally deficient and, thus, legally incompetent to render informed consent, the question of "who should decide" has emerged as the central issue facing the physician and the courts. Also of primary concern to physicians is the associated question of what legal consequences might follow from the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association. For further information and reprints, write to the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?