Is it in Charlie Gard's best interest to die?
作者信息
Savulescu Julian
机构信息
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK.
出版信息
Lancet. 2017 May 13;389(10082):1868-1869. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31204-7. Epub 2017 May 4.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Is it in Charlie Gard's best interest to die?让查理·加德死去符合他的最大利益吗？
Lancet. 2017 May 13;389(10082):1868-1869. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31204-7. Epub 2017 May 4.
2
Charlie Gard's parents end legal fight to keep son alive.
BMJ. 2017 Jul 25;358:j3589. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3589.
3
Observations on the case of Charlie Gard.关于查理·加德一案的观察
Arch Dis Child. 2018 May;103(5):409-410. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2017-314373. Epub 2018 Jan 30.
4
Charlie Gard and the limits of medicine.
Lancet. 2017 Aug 5;390(10094):531. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32159-1.
5
Why Charlie Gard's parents should have been the decision-makers about their son's best interests.为什么查理·盖德的父母应该是决定他们儿子最佳利益的人。
J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul;44(7):462-465. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104723. Epub 2018 May 3.
6
Guest editorial: Charlie Gard's five months in court: better dispute resolution mechanisms for medical futility disputes.客座社论：查理·加德的五个月庭审：完善医疗无效纠纷的争议解决机制
J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul;44(7):436-437. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104744.
7
Hard lessons: learning from the Charlie Gard case.沉痛教训：从查理·加德案中吸取教训。
J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul;44(7):438-442. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104492. Epub 2017 Aug 2.
8
Who Knows Best (Interests)? The Case of Charlie Gard.谁最了解（利益所在）？以查理·加德为例。
Med Law Rev. 2018 Aug 1;26(3):500-513. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwx060.
9
Approaches to parental demand for non-established medical treatment: reflections on the Charlie Gard case.寻求非已确立医疗方法的父母：查理·盖德案的反思。
J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul;44(7):443-447. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-104902. Epub 2018 May 18.
10
Reflections on Charlie Gard and the Best Interests Standard From Both Sides of the Atlantic Ocean.大西洋两岸对查理·加德案和最佳利益标准的反思。
Pediatrics. 2020 Aug;146(Suppl 1):S60-S65. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0818L.
引用本文的文献
1
Raqeeb, Haastrup, and Evans: Seeking Consistency through a Distributive Justice-Based Approach to Limitation of Treatment in the Context of Dispute.拉格比、哈斯卓普和埃文斯：在争议背景下，通过基于分配正义的治疗限制方法寻求一致性。
J Law Med Ethics. 2022;50(1):169-180. doi: 10.1017/jme.2022.21.
Zotero 插件