End-of-life issues pose some of the most difficult dilemmas in medical ethics. The Supreme Court confirmed yesterday that doctors can withdraw clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from a profoundly brain-damaged patient, if the family agrees, without permission from a court.
The case cuts straight to the increasingly contentious issue of whether people should be “allowed to die”. Is this actually a euphemism for killing someone? Proponents say it is the right thing to do if a patient’s life no longer corresponds to the idea of living. Who, though, is entitled to make such a judgment? And should it ever be made at all?
Last year, after a heart attack, a 52-year-old man fell into a condition called “prolonged disorder of consciousness”. In other words, his