The permanently unconscious patient, non-feeding and euthanasia

Some sources condemn judicial decisions which authorize the withdrawal of artificial nutrition from permanently unconscious patients. These critics assert that withdrawal of nutrition from a preservable unconscious patient amounts to intentional killing of a helpless human being. Grave implications are seen for helpless patients. This article confronts these critics and their assertions. The author contends that the judicial approach which allows withdrawal of artificial nutrition is fully consistent with traditional medico-legal doctrines. The article articulates a standard--respect for human dignity--which justifies withdrawal of artificial nutrition from a permanently unconscious patient. The implications of this formula for other incompetent patients facing a protracted dying process is discussed. Finally, the article explains why active euthanasia can and ought to be distinguished from withdrawal of life-preserving medical intervention.     

Glucksberg, the putative right to adequate pain relief, and death with dignity

This Article focuses on the legality of the aggressive use of analgesics and deep sedation for terminally ill patients. The author analyzes the 1997 Supreme Court decisions on physician-assisted suicide, examines the tension between controversial palliative care practices and the traditional legal framework, and explores the contours of an emerging constitutional right to avoid suffering at the end of life. In addition, the author argues that deep sedation together with withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration should be an option for dying patients suffering from severe physical or emotional pain.