Literature DB >> 10833136

Palliative care versus euthanasia. The German position: the German General Medical Council's principles for medical care of the terminally ill.

S W Sahm1.   

Abstract

In September 1998 the Bundesärztekammer, i.e., the German Medical Association, published new principles concerning terminal medical care. Even before publication, a draft of these principles was very controversial, and prompted intense public debate in the mass media. Despite some of the critics' suspicions that the principles prepared the way for liberalization of active euthanasia, euthanasia is unequivocally rejected in the principles. Physician-assisted suicide is considered to violate professional medical rules. In leaving aside some of the notions customarily used in the euthanasia debate, e.g., passive euthanasia, the principles emphasize the obligation of physicians to offer and the right of patients to receive palliative care. The principles explicitly list modalities of basic treatment that are indispensable in all cases, such as the obligation to satisfy hunger and thirst. This statement is meant to resolve the dispute on nutrition and hydration at the end of life, as it shifts the focus of care from maintaining physiological parameters to satisfying subjective needs. For patients in a persistent vegetative state, artificial feeding is held to be obligatory. Yet, the principles make reference to recent German jurisdiction which permit the stopping of artificial feeding if it is in accordance with the patient's presumed will. Additionally, the wording concerning this issue is found to remain unclear. Patients' autonomy is strengthened by explicitly welcoming advance directives as a means to ascertain patients' wills. The principles mark some changes compared to earlier documents. They deserve careful analysis and should be considered in the international debate on issues concerning the end of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10833136     DOI: 10.1076/0360-5310(200004)25:2;1-O;FT195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Philos        ISSN: 0360-5310


  7 in total

1.  Models of ethical consultation: the Frankfurt model.

Authors:  K W Schmidt
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2001-09

2.  What are cancer patients' preferences about treatment at the end of life, and who should start talking about it? A comparison with healthy people and medical staff.

Authors:  S Sahm; R Will; G Hommel
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2005-01-19       Impact factor: 3.603

3.  Would they follow what has been laid down? Cancer patients' and healthy controls' views on adherence to advance directives compared to medical staff.

Authors:  S Sahm; R Will; G Hommel
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2005

4.  Doctor-cared dying instead of physician-assisted suicide: a perspective from Germany.

Authors:  Fuat S Oduncu; Stephan Sahm
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2010-11

5.  Attitudes towards and barriers to writing advance directives amongst cancer patients, healthy controls, and medical staff.

Authors:  S Sahm; R Will; G Hommel
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 6.  Culture and end of life care: a scoping exercise in seven European countries.

Authors:  Marjolein Gysels; Natalie Evans; Arantza Meñaca; Erin Andrew; Franco Toscani; Sylvia Finetti; H Roeline Pasman; Irene Higginson; Richard Harding; Robert Pool
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Intricate decision making: ambivalences and barriers when fulfilling an advance directive.

Authors:  Lars Schröder; Gerhard Hommel; Stephan Sahm
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.711

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.