Letters
Report is unnecessarily negative
EDITOR,--Robin S Howard and David H Miller's editorial on the persistent vegetative state1 is timely because several working parties are debating this condition, including the Royal College of Physicians; the European Union's biomedical and health research programme (BIOMED I) at the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College, London; and an international working party and conference on management of the condition held at the Royal College of Physicians in March. The editorial reviews the position of the Multi-Society Task Force.2 3 Considerable concern has been expressed, particularly among consultants in rehabilitation, that the task force's report is unnecessarily negative.
The international working party was set up because of concern that insufficient attention was being given to the treatment, especially the rehabilitation, of patients in a persistent vegetative state. It will debate the concern about the terminology used; the classification of patients into various levels of persistent vegetative state and
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
StumbleUpon 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
- The persistent vegetative state
- Robin S Howard and David H Miller
BMJ 1995 310: 341-342.[Extract] [Full Text]
This Article
- Full text
- Respond to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
Bookmark with
What's new
Latest blogs
Find BMJ on:
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
There are no rapid responses for this article. Print issues
