Bole T J
HEC Forum. 1990;2(4):219-32. doi: 10.1007/BF00122604.
The traditional distinction between ordinary, i.e., obligatory means to preserve life and extraordinary, non-obligatory means is an especially useful tool for HECs in today's secular pluralist health care system, because it gives factors that can override the prima facie good of preserving the patient's life. I first indicate the need for such a tool. I then demonstrate the present misunderstanding of the distinction and give its proper understanding. Finally, I show the applicability of the distinction for HEC deliberations about three important types of cases: the conscious, irreversibly but not terminally ill patient who requests cessation of curative treatment; the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration to permanently vegetative patients; and the allotment of intensive care and other scarce medical resources.
传统上对普通（即维持生命的必要手段）与特别（非必要手段）的区分，对于当今世俗多元主义医疗体系中的医疗伦理委员会而言，是一种尤为有用的工具，因为它提供了一些因素，这些因素能够超越维持患者生命这一表面上的益处。我首先指出对这种工具的需求。接着，我论证当前对这一区分的误解，并给出其正确理解。最后，我说明这一区分在医疗伦理委员会对三类重要案例的审议中的适用性：有意识的、处于不可逆但非终末期疾病状态且请求停止治疗的患者；为永久性植物人患者提供人工营养和水分；以及分配重症监护和其他稀缺医疗资源。
