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

Fidel Davila, MD
Ben Taub General Hospital Baylor College of Medicine Houston

JAMA. 1986;256(4):470-471.

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

To the Editor.—

Recently, the American Medical Association (AMA) Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs adopted a stand based on ethical considerations that allows the withholding of nutrition and fluids from patients under special clinical circumstances. This stand is a grievous error, since it impinges on legal areas reserved for judicial authorities and such withholding may be considered euthanasia, which is still illegal in this country.

Most clinical decisions are directed at preserving life and have medical, ethical, and legal implications. When non-terminally ill patients or their stead refuse indicated life-preserving medical care including nutrition and fluids (eg, Brophy and Jobes), with the results of these refusals being certain death in the immediate future, the judicial authorities have reserved the right of final decision.^1-4 These judicial authorities should be consulted on an urgent basis.

In terminally ill patients for whom no life-preserving medical care is available, ethical considerations allow . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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