By the same authors

From the same journal

From the same journal

Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: Family experiences

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state : Family experiences. / Kitzinger, Celia; Kitzinger, Jenny.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2016, p. 11-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Kitzinger, C & Kitzinger, J 2016, 'Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: Family experiences', Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102777

APA

Kitzinger, C., & Kitzinger, J. (2016). Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: Family experiences. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(1), 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102777

Vancouver

Kitzinger C, Kitzinger J. Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: Family experiences. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2016;42(1):11-17. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102777

Author

Kitzinger, Celia ; Kitzinger, Jenny. / Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state : Family experiences. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2016 ; Vol. 42, No. 1. pp. 11-17.

Bibtex - Download

@article{096dbfda1b7c495fba88c9ed0c28b97b,
title = "Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: Family experiences",
abstract = "Withdrawal of artificially delivered nutrition and hydration (ANH) from patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) requires judicial approval in England and Wales, even when families and healthcare professionals agree that withdrawal is in the patient's best interests. Part of the rationale underpinning the original recommendation for such court approval was the reassurance of patients' families, but there has been no research as to whether or not family members are reassured by the requirement for court proceedings or how they experience the process. The research reported here draws on in-depth narrative interviews with 10 family members (from five different families) of PVS patients who have been the subject of court proceedings for ANH-withdrawal. We analyse the empirical evidence to understand how family members perceive and experience the process of applying to the courts for ANH-withdrawal and consider the ethical and practice implications of our findings. Our analysis of family experience supports arguments grounded in economic and legal analysis that court approval should no longer be required. We conclude with some suggestions for how we might develop other more efficient, just and humane mechanisms for reviewing best interests decisions about ANH-withdrawal from these patients.",
author = "Celia Kitzinger and Jenny Kitzinger",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1136/medethics-2015-102777",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "11--17",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state

T2 - Family experiences

AU - Kitzinger, Celia

AU - Kitzinger, Jenny

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Withdrawal of artificially delivered nutrition and hydration (ANH) from patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) requires judicial approval in England and Wales, even when families and healthcare professionals agree that withdrawal is in the patient's best interests. Part of the rationale underpinning the original recommendation for such court approval was the reassurance of patients' families, but there has been no research as to whether or not family members are reassured by the requirement for court proceedings or how they experience the process. The research reported here draws on in-depth narrative interviews with 10 family members (from five different families) of PVS patients who have been the subject of court proceedings for ANH-withdrawal. We analyse the empirical evidence to understand how family members perceive and experience the process of applying to the courts for ANH-withdrawal and consider the ethical and practice implications of our findings. Our analysis of family experience supports arguments grounded in economic and legal analysis that court approval should no longer be required. We conclude with some suggestions for how we might develop other more efficient, just and humane mechanisms for reviewing best interests decisions about ANH-withdrawal from these patients.

AB - Withdrawal of artificially delivered nutrition and hydration (ANH) from patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) requires judicial approval in England and Wales, even when families and healthcare professionals agree that withdrawal is in the patient's best interests. Part of the rationale underpinning the original recommendation for such court approval was the reassurance of patients' families, but there has been no research as to whether or not family members are reassured by the requirement for court proceedings or how they experience the process. The research reported here draws on in-depth narrative interviews with 10 family members (from five different families) of PVS patients who have been the subject of court proceedings for ANH-withdrawal. We analyse the empirical evidence to understand how family members perceive and experience the process of applying to the courts for ANH-withdrawal and consider the ethical and practice implications of our findings. Our analysis of family experience supports arguments grounded in economic and legal analysis that court approval should no longer be required. We conclude with some suggestions for how we might develop other more efficient, just and humane mechanisms for reviewing best interests decisions about ANH-withdrawal from these patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953213159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2015-102777

DO - 10.1136/medethics-2015-102777

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84953213159

VL - 42

SP - 11

EP - 17

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 1

ER -