Why the BMA guidance on CANH is dangerous
This personal view draws attention to the lack of regard, given by the BMA in its new guidance, to the symptomatic benefit of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients who are not imminently dying. This article aims to identify how ignoring symptomatic benefit is a serious overs...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2019
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2019, Volume: 45, Issue: 10, Pages: 690 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This personal view draws attention to the lack of regard, given by the BMA in its new guidance, to the symptomatic benefit of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients who are not imminently dying. This article aims to identify how ignoring symptomatic benefit is a serious oversight and cause for concern given that this document, endorsed by the General Medical Council (GMC) and courts, is created with the purpose of providing a framework for best interests decision-making.The new BMA guidance on CANH, which is endorsed by the GMC,1 follows up on the Supreme Court case of An NHS Trust v Y,2 that any removal of CANH from a patient in prolonged disorder of consciousness (PDOC) no longer requires the approval of the court unless there is disagreement or the decision is finely balanced. The decision in … |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105648 |