Potentially Life-Saving Law Should Not be Trumped by Individual or Corporate Conscience.
The article critically examines proposals by Wasserman et al. advocating for the abandonment of much existing law on the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining treatment, suggesting instead that clinical institutions or their internal protocols regulate such decisions. It highlights the legal...
| Publicado en: | American Journal of Bioethics Vol. 26; no. 7; pp. 86 - 89 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | commentary Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Jul2026
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=194782904&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 194782904 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15265161 FKZ jtl: American Journal of Bioethics issn: 15265161 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jul2026 vid: 26 iid: 7 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 194782904 194782904 194782904 10.1080/15265161.2026.2675924 194782904 ppf: 86 ppct: 3 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Potentially Life-Saving Law Should Not be Trumped by Individual or Corporate Conscience. aug: au: Foster, Charles affil: University of Oxford sug: subj: Conscience Ethical Issues Hospitals Ethical Issues Ethics, Organizational Bioethics Decision Making, Organizational Ethical Issues Terminal Care Ethical Issues ab: The article critically examines proposals by Wasserman et al. advocating for the abandonment of much existing law on the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining treatment, suggesting instead that clinical institutions or their internal protocols regulate such decisions. It highlights the legal presumption favoring the maintenance of life, which currently limits the influence of individual clinicians' conscience, especially in secular institutions, and argues that the authors’ emphasis on conscience risks undermining established legal and ethical frameworks. The article contends that prioritizing individual conscience over legal principles could lead to unreviewable clinical decisions that disregard patients’ interests and advance directives, posing significant practical and ethical challenges. It concludes that maintaining the current legal duty to preserve life, except in compelling circumstances unrelated to clinicians’ or institutions’ conscience, is essential. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: commentary Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|