Search Details

Word: treatments (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 »

...Stone still feels that the Saikewicz decision was a good one. "I think this was necessary in an historical sense," Stone says. "Doctors were not aware of the moral and ethical issues involved," in making the decision whether or not to withhold treatment. Stone feels that the Saikewicz case forced doctors and nurses to confront these issues...

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

...Mitchell T. Rabkin '51, general 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 »

...court became the first in the nation to uphold the withholding of emergency treatment from irreversibly, terminally-ill in-competent patients who suffer caridac or respiratory failure. The decision held that doctors have the final say on the right-to-die of these patients...

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

Previous | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | Next