Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconsidering the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary treatment: Should we go “back to the future”?

  • Articles
  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Compassion in Dying v. State of Wash., 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996).

  2. Matter of Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647 (N.J., 1976).

  3. Bouvia v. Superior Court (Glenchur), 225 Cal. Rptr. 297 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1986).

  4. Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., Inc., 497 N.E.2d 626 (Mass. 1986).

  5. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Deciding to forego life-sustaining treatment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Opinion 2.20, Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment”, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association.

  7. Brody H, Assisted suicide — a compassionate response to a medical failure, New England Journal of Medicine 1992; 327(10):1387.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF, Principles of biomedical ethics, 4th Edition. NY: Oxford University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Life-sustaining treatment: making decisions and appointing a health care agent. NY; 1987.

  10. Vanderpool HY, Death and dying: Euthanasia and sustaining life; I. historical aspects, Encyclopedia of bioethics, Vol I, Reich WT, ed. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ahronheim JC, Moreno J, Zuckerman C, Ethics in clinical practice. Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Directive 61, Ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care service, National Conference of Catholic Bishops; 1994.

  13. Opinion 2.21, Euthanasia, and Opinion 2.211, Physician-Assisted Suicide, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association; 1992.

  14. Rowland v. Christian, 69 C2d. 108 (1968).

  15. Blake DC, State interests in terminating medical treatment”, Hastings Center Report. 1988; 19(3):5–13.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. David C. Blake Ph.D., J.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blake, D.C. Reconsidering the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary treatment: Should we go “back to the future”?. HEC Forum 8, 355–371 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00119943

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00119943

Keywords

Search

Navigation