Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111 HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP 
    advanced
CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Keating, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by Paris, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Keating, R. F.
Right arrow Articles by Paris, J. J.

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Vol 4, 1879-1883, Copyright © 1994 by American Society of Nephrology

REGULAR ARTICLES

Stopping dialysis of an incompetent patient over the family's objection: is it ever ethical and legal?

RF Keating, AH Moss, MI Sorkin and JJ Paris
Center for Health Ethics and Law, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown 26506-9022.

Decisions to stop dialysis or other life-sustaining treatments for incompetent patients are among the most difficult ethical problems faced by physicians and families. This observation is verified by the large number of court cases and the increasing frequency of ethics consultations on these issues. In such instances, in the absence of an advance directive, the usual practice for physicians is to turn to the patient's family for direction on whether to start, continue, or withdraw the treatment. They do so on the presumption that the family best represents the patient's interests. This presumption may not always be correct. A case is presented in which the family's insistence on continued dialysis was contrary to the patient's previously expressed wishes and the treating physician's assessment of the patient's best interests. It is asserted that, in such situations, after thorough conversation with the family, consultation, documentation, and an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the patient's care to another physician, nephrologists have an ethical obligation and legal right to override the family's decision and to stop dialysis. The ethical obligation is supported by the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. The legal right is grounded in common law and state statutes.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CJASNHome page
S. S. Patel and J. L. Holley
Withholding and Withdrawing Dialysis in the Intensive Care Unit: Benefits Derived from Consulting the Renal Physicians Association/American Society of Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline, Shared Decision-Making in the Appropriate Initiation of and Withdrawal from Dialysis
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., March 1, 2008; 3(2): 587 - 593.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GerontologistHome page
R. A. Pruchno, E. P. Lemay Jr., L. Feild, and N. G. Levinsky
Spouse as Health Care Proxy for Dialysis Patients: Whose Preferences Matter?
Gerontologist, December 1, 2005; 45(6): 812 - 819.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
L. M. Cohen, M. J. Germain, D. M. Poppel, A. L. Woods, P. S. Pekow, and C. M. Kjellstrand
Dying Well After Discontinuing the Life-Support Treatment of Dialysis
Arch Intern Med, September 11, 2000; 160(16): 2513 - 2518.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION AUTHOR INFO
EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Nephrology. Online ISSN: 1533-3450 Print ISSN: 1046-6673