
doi: 10.2307/1192182
pmid: 10129268
It is argued that most people would prefer that their lives not be artificially prolonged and that, in the absence of evidence that a particular person would have preferred otherwise, courts should permit life support to be withdrawn. A counter argument is presented.
Value of Life, 330, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Right to die, Intention, Choice Behavior, Terminal care, Humans, Ethics, Medical, Public opinion, Resuscitation Orders, Euthanasia, Judicial Role, Data Collection, Right to Die, United States, Life Support Care, Paternalism, Withholding Treatment, Euthanasia, Active, Public Opinion, Health Services Research, Patient Participation, Ethical Theory, Law, Supreme Court Decisions
Value of Life, 330, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Right to die, Intention, Choice Behavior, Terminal care, Humans, Ethics, Medical, Public opinion, Resuscitation Orders, Euthanasia, Judicial Role, Data Collection, Right to Die, United States, Life Support Care, Paternalism, Withholding Treatment, Euthanasia, Active, Public Opinion, Health Services Research, Patient Participation, Ethical Theory, Law, Supreme Court Decisions
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 15 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
