Ziv Magen v. Gold Coast Hospital

Ziv Magen refused to consent to withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from his 39-year-old wife Maiko.  He said he had been "ready to let her go" but not until he was sure everything possible had been done to save her.  (Courier Mail)  

He was told that his wife had only a 5 per cent chance of survival at best. "But even if she has only a 1 per cent chance of survival, does it give them the right to take that chance away from her?" he said.   Gold Coast Health Service District executive director Dr Brian Bell said the decision to stop treatment was made by doctors "on clinical grounds and no other."

Baby RB - Mother explains why she fought to let her son die

In November 2009, I blogged (here, here, and here, and here) about the very high profile Baby RB medical futility case in the British courts.  This was a case in which the mother supported withdrawing life support but the father did not.  Today, the mother, Kelly Bickell, talked to BBC Radio 5 about her decision.  I posted a copy of the High Court's opinion here.

Medical Futility at the End of Life: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations for Nurses

On this Thursday afternoon, I am presenting Medical Futility at the End of Life: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations for Nurses, at the Delaware Nurses Association Spring DNA/APN Conference.

Future of Rights of Conscience in Health Care: Legal and Ethical Perspectives

In February 2010, BYU Law held a conference titled "Future of Rights of Conscience in Health Care: Legal and Ethical Perspectives."  While draft articles have been available on the BYU site, the final articles were just published in the Ave Maria Law Review.  Here is the table of contents:

• 9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 1 -- PROTECTION OF HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS' RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE IN AMERICAN LAW: PRESENT, PAST, AND FUTURE Lynn D. Ward
• 9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 47 -- REFUSALS OF CONSCIENCE: WHAT ARE THEY AND WHEN SHOULD THEY BE ACCOMMODATED? Kent Greenawalt
• 9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 67 -- INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS VS. INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY: THE RELATIONAL DIMENSION OF CONSCIENCE IN HEALTH CARE Robert K. Vischer
• 9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 81 -- CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE: NOTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, REFERRAL, AND EMERGENCY TREATMENT Armand H. Matheny Antommaria
• 9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 101 -- EMPOWERING PRIVATE PROTECTION OF CONSCIENCE Robin Fretwell Wilson
•  9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 123 -- THE RIGHT TO CONSCIENCE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT Richard S. Myers
• 9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 141 -- DUTY FIRST: TOWARDS PATIENT-CENTERED CARE AND LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO REFUSE FOR MORAL, RELIGIOUS ORETHICAL REASONS Jill Morrison, Micole Allekotte
• 9 Ave Maria L. Rev. 189 -- PROFESSIONAL CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN MEDICINE WITH ATTENTION TO REFERRAL T.A. Cavanaugh

Legal Briefing: Healthcare Ethics Committees

My latest "Legal Briefing” column, "Healthcare Ethics Committees" was just published  in The Journal of Clinical Ethics 22, no. 1 (Spring 2011): 74-93.  

This article covers recent legal developments involving institutional healthcare ethics committees. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Healthcare ethics committees have also recently been the subject of significant public policy attention. Disturbingly, Bobby Schindler and others have described ethics committees as “death panels.” But most of the recent attention has been positive. Over the past several months, legislatures and courts have expanded the use of ethics committees and clarified their roles concerning both end-of-life treatment and other issues. These developments are usefully grouped into the following eight categories:

1.   Existence and availability

2.   Membership and composition

3.   Operating procedures

4.   Advisory roles

5.   Decision-making and gate-keeping roles

6.   Confidentiality

7.   Immunity

8.   Litigation and court cases

Conscience Clauses and Conscientious Objection

While the print version was released a few weeks ago, the online version of my brief look at the legal aspects of provider conscientious objection was posted in the Winter 2011 Lahey Clinic Medical Ethics Journal.  I did a more comprehensive review in 21(2) Journal of Clinical Ethics.

Asking Kidney Patients to Forgo a Free Lifeline

For many years, a significant portion of patients receiving dialysis have decided to voluntary forgo further dialysis.  But, as reported in today's New York Times, kidney specialists are increasingly pushing doctors to be more forthright with elderly people who have other serious medical conditions, to tell the patients that even though they are entitled to dialysis, they may want to decline such treatment and enter a hospice instead.