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.     

Order authorizing termination of certain life support systems

An elderly, severely brain-damaged patient was being ventilated and given nutrition and antibiotics intravenously in a medical center's critical care unit. Her legal guardian requested authorization to order that the respirator be withdrawn and the administration of nutrition and antibiotics be stopped. A Missouri circuit court ruled that, while public policy, as evidenced in the state's living will statute, permitted withdrawing the respirator, it apparently precluded withholding or withdrawing nutrition, hydration, or antibiotics.     

Withholding and withdrawing of life support: a medicolegal dilemma

The developments in medicine in general and the technology of life support in particular have provided the means of maintaining organ function for prolonged periods of time. However, there are many situations where life-sustaining treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) may lead to a death with lingering and suffering of the patient, as well as burdening their family. Although often equated, withholding and/or withdrawing life-prolonging treatments that allow the patient to die needs to be differentiated from the physician-assisted suicides and euthanasia that involve the active ending of life. There is a difference between an unintended but accepted consequence of forgoing therapy and an intended result of death from suicide or euthanasia. The present-day physicians view most patient deaths as an inevitable process secondary to disorders unresponsive to treatment and/or multiple organ dysfunction syndromes. The large majority of patients dying in ICUs today succumb not after cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but rather, after the forgoing of life-sustaining treatment. Such approach has frequently caused families, institutions, and conservators of patients to resort to judicial fiat for resolution.     

刑事撤回公诉辨析

刑事撤回公诉制度以一种刑事诉讼过滤机制和诉讼程序补救机制,彰显诉讼的程序价值和人权保障功能,维护着检察权威和司法形象。从完善刑事撤回公诉制度以及适应刑事诉讼法改革需要的角度出发,程序不由法院建议提起、强化撤回公诉地位、建立法律救济和监督程序,解决检察机关撤回公诉在司法实务层面存在的问题,进一步促进撤回公诉制度的完善和作用应有发挥。     

试论审判委员会的回避

目前在我国诉讼法中,立法者基于诸多考虑,未将审判委员会纳入诉讼回避主体范围,但其作为审判组织的性质决定了其具有回避的义务。实践中出现的诸多司法不公问题也表明审判委员会的回避制度是必要的。审判委员会回避的法律途径应该是诉讼管辖的变更。审判委员会的回避制度包括回避事由、回避程序、回避保障和法律救济等方面。     

简论部分的中止

部分的中止,是指行为人在着手实行阶段,自动放弃了已经具备的加重要素,而仅完成基本构成要件的情形.中止犯既可以针对基本犯而言,也可以针对加重犯而言;部分的中止符合中止犯的成立条件,具备减免处罚的根据;但是,不能随意扩大部分的中止之成立范围.成立部分的中止时,如果中止前的行为没有造成损害,应按基本犯定罪量刑;如果中止前的行为造成了损害,则应比较基本犯的法定刑与加重犯减轻后的法定刑,适用其中较重的法定刑.     

公司资本退出机制的思考

公司资本退出是股东权保护的底线,但资本维持原则的限制以及对资本流动价值、公司团体性等认识的局限,在一定程度上阻碍了资本退出之功能的实现。将资本退出的形态进行分类,并归纳具体的退出方式于统一的退出规则之下,是确立和巩固其法律地位的必然。尽管资本退出仅是股东自我保护的最后手段,但退出机会的提供以及退出利益的保障仍然是不可或缺的。     

论撤回公诉中的若干争议问题

撤回公诉是指在刑事诉讼中检察机关撤回已经向人民法院提起的公诉案件的诉讼活动。撤诉是效力未定的诉讼行为,其法律效力要从撤诉后的处理结果来体现。撤诉的法定事由包括:具有《刑事诉讼法》第15条规定的情形之一的;不存在犯罪事实或犯罪事实并非被告人所为的;因犯罪事实不清、证据不足,难以认定被告人有罪的;因管辖不当的。撤诉的时间应限定在合议庭或审判委员会作出一审判决之前。