Withdrawing life support from patients in a persistent vegetative state: the law in the Netherlands

This article sets out how a case like that of ms. Schiavo is likely to be decided in a Dutch court and compares that with the law in the United States. In the Netherlands there is one case with striking similarities: the decision of the Arnhem Court of Appeal of 1989. After describing that case (which to a large extent still reflects the legal state of the art), comments are given on several aspects of the issue, such as the labelling of artifical feeding as a medical intervention, the role of the physician, the position of the proxy or surrogate, the ways to resolve dispute in case of conflict, and the significance of advance directives. The analysis will show that, although there is more consensus on the issue now than there was 16 years ago, there are still several questions that need to be addressed in the future.     

Withdrawal of artificial nutrition in the persistent vegetative state: a continuous controversy

The withdrawal of life support from patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) is a controversial issue, as highlighted by a continuous public debate and recent judicial decisions. In Germany, a topic of particular interest is the abatement of artificial nutrition. First, doubts have come up whether every kind of technically delivered nutrition should be rated identically or whether a distinction between feeding tubes/gastrotomies and intravenous administration should be made. Second, the question is left open whether artificial nutrition is part of basic care and as a consequence may never be discontinued, or if it has to be regarded as life-sustaining treatment which can be refused by surrogates on behalf of the nonautonomous patient. Most recently, controversial judicial decisions have dealt with the question if substituted judgement concerning abatement of artificial nutrition by surrogates or legal guardians is permitted or if the approval of a court is necessary. Forensic evidence is provided which indicates that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition in patients in the persistent vegetative state may become a contributing causative factor or even the immediate cause of death. The legal implications with regard to the above-mentioned issues of controversy are discussed.     

Advance directives and the persistent vegetative state in Victoria: a human rights perspective

With advances in medical technology, it is now possible to sustain the life of a person in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) until a decision is made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Who makes that decision? Under the Medical Treatment Act 1988 (Vic) there is no legally enforceable right for a person to choose, in advance, what intervention that person will and will not accept if he or she ends up in a PVS. The best that can be achieved is that a person can appoint an agent who is empowered to refuse medical treatment on the person's behalf in the event of incompetence. It is suggested that this mechanism ignores two fundamental human rights: self-determination and the inherent right to dignity. This article proposes the development of an advance directive mechanism that provides for a person to refuse, in advance, specified intervention, thereby respecting fundamental human rights and alleviating the existing need for an agent to second-guess a person's desires and best interests.     

Masked intentions: the masquerade of killing thoughts used to justify dehydrating and starving people in a "persistent vegetative state" and people with other profound neurological impairments

Denying food and water to profoundly impaired people who may not be conscious, or may only be "minimally" conscious, raises challenging ethical issues. While there is growing support for withdrawing/withholding food and water (assisted nutrition and hydration, or "AHN") from people described as being in a "persistent vegetative state" ("PVS") and people with other profound neurological impairments, such as advanced dementia, the issue remains controversial, and for many, unresolved. In this article, the author argues that if a profoundly impaired person is not imminently dying from a disease process, denying food and water causes him or her to die of dehydration and starvation. When provision of food and water does not create excessive burdens (such as extreme pain and discomfort), and if the food and water can be digested and absorbed, denying such nourishment is immoral and unethical. Under these circumstances, this denial (by commission or omission) is motivated by a real intention to cause death, whether or not that intention is explicitly recognized.     

德国刑事诉讼法中的证据使用禁止

本文从批判性的视角概述了德国刑事诉讼法中关于证据采纳或者说是关于证据禁止的问题。证据禁止区分为非自主性证据使用禁止和自主性证据使用禁止。非自主性证据使用禁止可能是由于公诉中初步侦查时的取证错误导致的。就是否适用非自主性证据使用禁止这一问题,德国司法官会从几个方面加以考虑,例如,犯罪的严重性或者是取证错误的严重性。自主性证据使用禁止是由于侵犯了个人隐私。例如,私人日记不能作为证据使用。