Abstract
People have fought for their civil rights, primarily the right to live in dignity. At present, the development of technology in medicine and healthcare led to an apparent paradox: many people are fighting for the right to die. This study was aimed at testing whether different moral principles are associated with different attitudes towards end-of-life decisions for patients with a severe brain damage. We focused on the ethical decisions about withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in patients with severe brain damage. 202 undergraduate students at the University of Padova were given one description drawn from four profiles describing different pathological states: the permanent vegetative state, the minimally conscious state, the locked-in syndrome, and the terminal illness. Participants were asked to evaluate how dead or how alive the patient was, and how appropriate it was to satisfy the patient's desire. We found that the moral principles in which people believe affect not only people's judgments concerning the appropriateness of the withdrawal of life support, but also the perception of the death status of patients with severe brain injury. In particular, we found that the supporters of the Free Choice (FC) principle percei...Continue Reading
References
Sep 1, 1976·Archives of Neurology·B Jennett
Jul 1, 1986·Stroke; a Journal of Cerebral Circulation·J R Patterson, M Grabois
Apr 1, 1972·Lancet·B Jennett, F Plum
May 26, 1994·The New England Journal of Medicine·UNKNOWN Multi-Society Task Force on PVS
Jun 2, 1994·The New England Journal of Medicine·UNKNOWN Multi-Society Task Force on PVS
Jul 6, 1996·BMJ : British Medical Journal·K AndrewsC Littlewood
Jul 15, 1999·Social Science & Medicine·L J BlackhallS P Azen
Sep 2, 1999·Critical Care Medicine·J L Vincent
Apr 20, 2001·The New England Journal of Medicine·E F Wijdicks
Sep 1, 2001·The New England Journal of Medicine·M D Larson, A T Gray
Feb 13, 2002·Neurology·Joseph T GiacinoN D Zasler
Mar 13, 2002·Neurology·D Alan Shewmon
Apr 19, 2003·Palliative Medicine·Lars Johan MaterstvedtUNKNOWN EAPC Ethics Task Force
Aug 25, 2004·Lancet Neurology·Steven LaureysNicholas D Schiff
Feb 19, 2005·BMJ : British Medical Journal·Eimear Smith, Mark Delargy
Nov 8, 2005·Trends in Cognitive Sciences·Steven Laureys
Dec 15, 2005·Journal of Palliative Medicine·Lewis CohenJames Cleary
Apr 3, 2007·Journal of Medical Ethics·Johannes J M van Delden
Nov 8, 2008·Current Opinion in Neurology·Niels BirbaumerLeonardo Cohen
Jun 2, 2009·The Lancet Oncology·Lars Johan Materstvedt, Georg Bosshard
Jul 23, 2009·BMC Neurology·Caroline SchnakersSteven Laureys
Feb 5, 2010·The New England Journal of Medicine·Martin M MontiSteven Laureys
Apr 16, 2010·Journal of Neurology·Anna Durnová, Herbert Gottweis
May 21, 2010·The New England Journal of Medicine·Susan Byrne, Orla Hardiman
Aug 10, 2010·Journal of Medical Ethics·Eric RacineJudy Illes
Jan 12, 2011·Journal of Neurology·A DemertziS Laureys
Citations
Jan 21, 2014·Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy·Stephen HollandJenny Kitzinger
Aug 7, 2012·Anaesthesia·M Smith
Apr 24, 2015·PloS One·Erwin StolzWolfgang Freidl
May 22, 2018·Clinical Rehabilitation·Derick T Wade
Feb 26, 2014·Journal of Medical Ethics·Allison Leslie Hebron, Summer McGee