Abstract
In the two decades since the Karen Quinlan case first brought the issues that now go under the heading of the "right to die" to the attention of the courts and the public, a well-accepted legal consensus has developed about the law governing the forgoing of life-sustaining medical treatment. Law and clinical medical practice do not always run in tandem, however, and what law prescribes does not always occur in practice. One aspect of the legal consensus-that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical treatment and thus may be withheld or withdrawn according to the same procedures and standards as other life-sustaining medical treatments-is probably less well accepted than the remainder. For reasons that I will explain, this is understandable. But what is puzzling is that this element of the consensus seems to be even less well accepted in nursing homes than in acute-care hospitals.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
