Faculty of Law, Health Law Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia.
J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):135-8. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100991. Epub 2013 Jan 15.
In this paper, we examine the lawfulness of a proposal to provide elective ventilation to incompetent patients who are potential organ donors. Under the current legal framework, this depends on whether the best interests test could be satisfied. It might be argued that, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK) (and the common law) makes it clear that the best interests test is not confined to the patient's clinical interests, but extends to include the individual's own values, wishes and beliefs, the proposal will be in the patient's best interests. We reject this claim. We argue that, as things currently stand, the proposal could not lawfully be justified as a blanket proposition by reference to the best interests test. Accordingly, a modification of the law would be necessary to render the proposal lawful. We conclude with a suggestion about how that could be achieved.
在本文中，我们研究了一项提议的合法性，即向潜在器官捐献者中无行为能力的患者提供选择性通气。根据现行法律框架，这取决于是否可以满足最佳利益测试。有人可能会认为，由于 2005 年《精神能力法》（英国）（和普通法）明确规定，最佳利益测试不仅限于患者的临床利益，还包括个人的自身价值观、意愿和信念，因此该提议符合患者的最佳利益。我们反对这一说法。我们认为，就目前情况而言，该提议不能通过参考最佳利益测试来作为普遍主张进行合法辩护。因此，需要对法律进行修改，以使该提议合法化。我们最后提出了一种实现这一目标的建议。
