This Article  • References  • 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 (12)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert M. Veatch, PhD

JAMA. 1985;253(1):77-78.

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

One of the most important developments in medical ethics of the last decade has been the increasing recognition that there are times when it is unnecessary, even wrong, to resuscitate seriously ill patients. The American Medical Association's Judicial Council makes clear that this is its view when it says that "with informed consent a physician may do what is medically necessary to alleviate severe pain, or cease or omit treatment to let a terminally ill patient die, but he should not intentionally cause death."^1(p9) The lay population seems to agree. Both secular philosophers and spokespersons for most of the major religious traditions now agree with the recent report of the President's Commission on Ethical Problems in Medicine that states that "a competent and informed patient or an incompetent patient's surrogate is entitled to decide with the attending physician that an order against resuscitation should be written in the chart." . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Georgetown University Washington, DC

Footnotes
Address editorial communications to the Editor, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610.

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