By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients : a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32. / Kitzinger, Jenny; Kitzinger, Celia.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 43, No. 7, 01.07.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Kitzinger, J & Kitzinger, C 2017, 'Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32', Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 43, no. 7. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103853

APA

Kitzinger, J., & Kitzinger, C. (2017). Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(7). https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103853

Vancouver

Kitzinger J, Kitzinger C. Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2017 Jul 1;43(7). https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103853

Author

Kitzinger, Jenny ; Kitzinger, Celia. / Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients : a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2017 ; Vol. 43, No. 7.

Bibtex - Download

@article{331b597d10fa455b80736cc01c6a283b,
title = "Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32",
abstract = "Life-extending treatment, in the form of artificial nutrition and hydration, is often provided to people in permanent vegetative states (PVS) in England and Wales for many years, even when their family believes the patient would not want it and despite the fact that no court in the UK has ever found in favour of continuing such treatment for a patient with a confirmed PVS diagnosis. The first half of this article presents a close analysis of the recent case of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32. It examines the causes of delay in bringing this case to court and reaching a final judgment. It draws not only on the published judgment, but also on the two authors' involvement in supporting the family (before, during and subsequent to the court hearings) as a result of their academic and policy-related work in this area. This includes conversations with the family and with members of the clinical and legal teams, and observations in court. The second part of the article draws out the ethical and practical implications of the findings for theory and policy and suggests ways forward in relation to (a) the provision and inspection of care for these patients; (b) legal practice in relation to 'best interests' and (c) the perceived requirement under English law for a court application before life-prolonging treatment can be withdrawn from PVS patients-even in the absence of any 'in principle' opposition.",
author = "Jenny Kitzinger and Celia Kitzinger",
note = "Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2016.",
year = "2017",
month = jul,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/medethics-2016-103853",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients

T2 - a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32

AU - Kitzinger, Jenny

AU - Kitzinger, Celia

N1 - Copyright Article author (or their employer) 2016.

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - Life-extending treatment, in the form of artificial nutrition and hydration, is often provided to people in permanent vegetative states (PVS) in England and Wales for many years, even when their family believes the patient would not want it and despite the fact that no court in the UK has ever found in favour of continuing such treatment for a patient with a confirmed PVS diagnosis. The first half of this article presents a close analysis of the recent case of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32. It examines the causes of delay in bringing this case to court and reaching a final judgment. It draws not only on the published judgment, but also on the two authors' involvement in supporting the family (before, during and subsequent to the court hearings) as a result of their academic and policy-related work in this area. This includes conversations with the family and with members of the clinical and legal teams, and observations in court. The second part of the article draws out the ethical and practical implications of the findings for theory and policy and suggests ways forward in relation to (a) the provision and inspection of care for these patients; (b) legal practice in relation to 'best interests' and (c) the perceived requirement under English law for a court application before life-prolonging treatment can be withdrawn from PVS patients-even in the absence of any 'in principle' opposition.

AB - Life-extending treatment, in the form of artificial nutrition and hydration, is often provided to people in permanent vegetative states (PVS) in England and Wales for many years, even when their family believes the patient would not want it and despite the fact that no court in the UK has ever found in favour of continuing such treatment for a patient with a confirmed PVS diagnosis. The first half of this article presents a close analysis of the recent case of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32. It examines the causes of delay in bringing this case to court and reaching a final judgment. It draws not only on the published judgment, but also on the two authors' involvement in supporting the family (before, during and subsequent to the court hearings) as a result of their academic and policy-related work in this area. This includes conversations with the family and with members of the clinical and legal teams, and observations in court. The second part of the article draws out the ethical and practical implications of the findings for theory and policy and suggests ways forward in relation to (a) the provision and inspection of care for these patients; (b) legal practice in relation to 'best interests' and (c) the perceived requirement under English law for a court application before life-prolonging treatment can be withdrawn from PVS patients-even in the absence of any 'in principle' opposition.

U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2016-103853

DO - 10.1136/medethics-2016-103853

M3 - Article

C2 - 27663784

VL - 43

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 7

ER -