This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John J. Paris, SJ, PhD; Frank E. Reardon, JD

JAMA. 1985;253(15):2243-2245.

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

THE WITHHOLDING or withdrawing of artificial nutrition and fluids from a patient is an emotionally charged and controversial issue, one that raises cries of "euthanasia" and, in the case of two California physicians, an indictment for murder. Two intermediate appellate courts, California¹ and Massachusetts,² have faced the medical-legal issue, the former in a criminal action and the latter in a civil case, and each has issued a final ruling approving the withholding or withdrawal of artificial feeding in certain limited circumstances. A third appellate court's characterization of a trial judge's order permitting the removal of a nasogastric tube from 84-year-old Claire Conroy who was suffering from advanced organic brain syndrome and other multiple serious ailments as "authorizing euthanasia," is presently under review by the New Jersey Supreme Court.³

These cases, which generated widespread notice and apprehension within the medical community, have resulted in a spate of recent articles . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Mass (Dr Paris), and the Department of Legal Counsel, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston (Mr Reardon).

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Department of Religious Studies, Holy Cross College, Worcester, MA 10706 (Dr Paris).

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