Search

The article explores the individual patient's right to refuse, withdraw, or insist on medical treatment where there is conflict over these issues involving health care personnel or institutions, family members, legal requirements, or third parties concerned with public policy or religious/ideological/political interests. Issues of physician assistance in dying and medical futility are considered. The basis and the current legal status of these rights is examined, and it is concluded that threats to the autonomy of patients, to the privacy of the doctor/patient relationship, and to the quality of medical care should be taken seriously by individuals, medical practitioners, and others concerned with developing and maintaining reasonable, effective, and ethical health care policy.

What would Terri Schiavo have wanted? That remains an unanswered question for many who followed the media frenzy that attended the extraordinary court and legislative battles that preceded her death 13 days after her feeding tube was removed for the last time. What would she have directed her physicians to do if she had "miraculously" regained capacity and awareness of the consequences of her cardiac arrest that left her in a persistent vegetative state? Who would she have wanted to make that decision for her if she were unable to do so? How are we to understand the meaning of statements that she purportedly made about life-sustaining treatments approximately 20 years ago, and how can we apply them to the current situation? This article reflects on those questions from the perspective of two small exploratory studies. These studies considered the meanings and interpretation of statements by terminally ill patients concerning desire for hastened death and the relevance of previously made statements to their current clinical situation.