Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Litigating life and death.

N K Rhoden

    Harvard Law Review
    |November 5, 1988
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Courts struggle with end-of-life decisions for incompetent patients. A legal presumption favoring family decision-making is proposed to replace unworkable subjective and objective tests in right-to-die cases.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Legal issues in neonatal intensive care.

    International journal of technology assessment in health care·1991
    Same author

    A compromise on abortion?

    The Hastings Center report·1989
    Same author

    Perinatal law and ethics rounds.

    Obstetrics and gynecology·1988
    Same author

    When refusing treatment jeopardizes another life.

    Nursing·1988
    Same author

    Cesareans and Samaritans.

    Law, medicine & health care : a publication of the American Society of Law & Medicine·1987
    Same author

    Treating Baby Doe: the ethics of uncertainty.

    The Hastings Center report·1986
    Same journal

    Dormant Commerce Clause--Extraterritoriality Doctrine--Fourth Circuit Invalidates Maryland Statute Regulating Price Gouging in the Sale Of Generic Drugs.--Association for Accessible Medicines v. Frosh, 887 F.3d 664 (4th Cir. 2018).

    Harvard law review·2019
    Same journal

    Civil Rights--Eighth Amendment--Third Circuit Holds Parents of Mentally Ill Young Man Held in Solitary Confinement Stated Claims of Cruel and Unusual Punishment.--Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2017).

    Harvard law review·2018
    Same journal

    Tort Law--Expert Testimony in Asbestos Litigation--District of South Carolina Holds the Every Exposure Theory Insufficient to Demonstrate Specific Causation Even If Legal Conclusions are Scientifically Sound.--Haskins v. 3m Co., Nos. 2:15-cv-02086, 3:15-cv-02123, 2017 WL 3118017 (D.S.C. July 21, 2017).

    Harvard law review·2017
    Same journal

    Antitrust Law--Hospital Mergers--Third Circuit Clarifies Geographic Market Definition and Raises Bar for Efficiencies Defense.

    Harvard law review·2017
    Same journal

    Preemption — ERISA Preemption — Sixth Circuit Holds That ERISA Does Not Preempt Michigan Medicaid Tax Law.

    Harvard law review·2017
    Same journal

    Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

    Harvard law review·2017
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Legal Studies
    • Bioethics
    • Medical Law

    Background:

    • Courts face challenges in establishing legal standards for terminating medical treatment for incompetent patients.
    • Existing legal tests, the "subjective" and "objective" standards, are criticized for being unworkable and dehumanizing.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critique the current legal standards used in right-to-die cases.
    • To propose an alternative legal framework prioritizing family decision-making in medical treatment termination.

    Main Methods:

    • Analysis of existing "subjective" and "objective" legal tests for terminating patient treatment.
    • Critique of the evidentiary burdens and ethical implications of these tests.
    • Proposal of a new legal presumption favoring family discretion in end-of-life decisions.
    Keywords:
    Death and EuthanasiaIn re ConroyIn re QuinlanLegal Approach

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • The "subjective" test is often unworkable due to high evidentiary requirements for patient preferences.
    • The "objective" test dehumanizes patients by focusing solely on present physical suffering.
    • Current legal standards reflect a medical presumption favoring treatment, burdening families seeking termination.

    Conclusions:

    • Abandoning the "subjective" and "objective" tests is recommended.
    • A legal presumption favoring family decision-making in terminating medical treatment for incompetent patients should be adopted.
    • This new standard acknowledges families' unique qualifications and eases the burden of proof in right-to-die cases.