J Am Geriatr Soc. 1987 Jul;35(7):669-78.
On September 11, 1986, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in a 4-3 decision, authorized removal of the artificial feeding tube. It held that the "substituted judgment" of an incompetent person in a persistent vegetative state to refuse artificially administered sustenance must be honored. The Court also refused to compel the hospital in this case to terminate the treatment, but permitted other hospitals to comply with the patient's wishes. We are publishing the amicus curiae brief filed by the Society for the Right to Die, Inc. in the Brophy case. Our purpose in doing this is to stimulate further discussion of the issue of the role of the patients who become incompetent, a matter of major concern to geriatric specialists. This brief has been well-prepared. It contains a legal and ethical history of considerable merit. It has not, however, been endorsed by the American Geriatrics Society (AGS). Some of the principles the AGS has endorsed can be found on its own brief filed in the Conroy case (published in the December 1984 issue of the Journal). Physicians and medical ethicists in particular may wish to consider the caveats noted by David Thomasma, PhD. in his editorial in this issue of the Journal. We invite further discussion.
1986年9月11日,马萨诸塞州最高法院以4比3的裁决授权移除人工喂食管。法院认为,必须尊重处于持续植物状态的无行为能力人拒绝人工给予营养的“替代判断”。法院还拒绝强迫本案中的医院终止治疗,但允许其他医院遵从患者的意愿。我们正在发表由死亡权利协会在布罗菲案中提交的法庭之友简报。我们这样做的目的是激发对无行为能力患者角色问题的进一步讨论,这是老年病专家非常关注的一个问题。这份简报准备充分。它包含了具有相当价值的法律和伦理史。然而,它并未得到美国老年病学会(AGS)的认可。AGS认可的一些原则可以在其在康罗伊案中提交的自己的简报中找到(发表于《杂志》1984年12月期)。尤其是医生和医学伦理学家可能希望考虑大卫·托马斯马博士在本期《杂志》社论中指出的告诫。我们欢迎进一步的讨论。