Abstract
The paper presents a comparative analysis of the positions of the courts in respect with the necessity of a court’s authorization to terminate life-support. Some courts hold that it is mandatory in any case, while the other reduce the role of the tribunals only to disputes arising from the decision to withdraw life-support.
Highlights
“In current medicine, there is an advance in the treatment of the terminally ill [patients] or [their] serious pathologies, in order to give the patient not necessarily more years of [his] life, but mainly [his] survival with quality
The Brazilian federal court has reiterated the main tendency in medical law over the last decades: both the law and the judiciary came to a conclusion that the dignity of the patient concerned and his right to autonomy in decision-making should prevail over the intentions of his close relatives or physicians, regardless of the fact its non-application could result in subsequent demise
Various courts recognize that a decision to terminate life-supporting treatment is a highly-personal matter (OLG Karlsruhe..., 2001, para. 15–16 (Germany); RB Zeeland-West-Brabant..., 2014, section 3.3 (Netherlands)), life and health are “very personal rights”2, but that should not mean that such a decision is entirely a matter of the patient himself and the hospital staff, to whom appropriate directives are given
Summary
It generally does not, despite that courts in the United States in the late 1970s chose to adhere to the position that the termination of life-supporting treatment is an entirely “medical” decision, which would not require a judicial approval, at least under ordinary circumstances (in the Matter of Shirley Dinnerstein, 1978, 466, 473–474) The court order seems to be apparently necessary
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
