Search Details

Word: courtly (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...court added that it "recognized a general right in all persons to refuse medical treatment in appropriate circumstances," based on the constitutional right to privacy which modern courts have interpreted in the last 15 years. It also accepted the current ethical practice that providing comfort for a dying patient is often in his own best interest...

Author: By Daniel Gil, | Title: A Matter of Life and Death: Who Should 'Pull The Plug'? | 5/29/1979 | See Source »

...weigh the individual's right to privacy and human dignity versus the state's interest, the court established itself as the chief decision-maker, with the help of a court-appointed guardian...

Author: By Daniel Gil, | Title: A Matter of Life and Death: Who Should 'Pull The Plug'? | 5/29/1979 | See Source »

Alan A. Stone '50, professor of Law and Psychiatry, concurs. He says there is no way that the "court can give more enlightened efforts" than doctors, and that relying on the courts "is an incredibly laborious process," which is not conducive to the "moment-to-moment" decisions that medicine often requires...

Author: By Daniel Gil, | Title: A Matter of Life and Death: Who Should 'Pull The Plug'? | 5/29/1979 | See Source »

...director of Beth Israel Hospital and associate professor of Medicine, says, unlike most of his colleagues, that "the Saikewicz decision was a wise one." But he, too, feels that doctors read the ruling too strictly--that every time one wants to withhold treatment from incompetents, one must seek the court's approval. Rabkin feels this is not appropriate for a dying patient...

Author: By Daniel Gil, | Title: A Matter of Life and Death: Who Should 'Pull The Plug'? | 5/29/1979 | See Source »

...lower court has gone ahead and clarified the Saikewicz case in last year's Shirley Dinnerstein decision. On June 30, 1978, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that Saikewicz dealt with a case where there was a reasonable chance of prolonging or saving life; in the case of Dinnerstein, however, treatment would have been "a mere suspension of the act of dying," the court said. The case of a patient near death such as Dinnerstein presented "no significant treatment choice or election" because "attempts to apply resuscitation, if successful, will do nothing to cure or relieve the illnesses which will have...

Author: By Daniel Gil, | Title: A Matter of Life and Death: Who Should 'Pull The Plug'? | 5/29/1979 | See Source »

Previous | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | Next