Why the GMC is right to appeal over life prolonging treatment

doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7470.810

BMJ 2004;329:810-811 (9 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7470.810

Editorial

Why the GMC is right to appeal over life prolonging treatment

Unless a high court judgment is overturned it will skew medicalcare

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The General Medical Council, Britain's regulatory body for doctors,is surely right to have appealed against a high court rulingthat its current guidance on withholding and withdrawing lifeprolonging treatment is unlawful.^1
2 If not overturned the judgmentis likely severely to tilt the balance of medical practice towardsnon-beneficial and wasteful provision of life prolonging treatmentin general and of artificial nutrition and hydration in particular.

The specific case on which the high court made this ruling isuncontroversial. If the existing GMC guidance were followedMr Burke, who took the case to the high court and who has degenerativespinocerebellar ataxia, would have been treated with artificialnutrition and hydration for rather longer than Mr Justice Munbyhas now ruled that he must be treated. But the judgment itselfextends far beyond the particular case and can be predictedto lead doctors routinely to provide artificial nutrition and. . . [Full text of this article]

Raanan Gillon, emeritus professor of medical ethics

Imperial College Medical Ethics Unit, Department of Primary Care and Social Medicine, London W6 8RP (raanan.gillon@imperial.ac.uk)

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

GMC appeals against judgment on withholding treatment: Clare Dyer
BMJ 2004 329: 818. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Tripp, J, McGregor, D (2006). Withholding and withdrawing of life sustaining treatment in the newborn. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 91: F67-F71 [Abstract] [Full text]
Watson, A R (2005). Ethics support in clinical practice. Arch. Dis. Child. 90: 943-946 [Abstract] [Full text]
English, V., Mussell, R., Sheather, J., Sommerville, A. (2005). Ethics briefings. J. Med. Ethics 31: 309-310 [Full text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Why Run to Court of Appeal?: Jay Ilangaratne
bmj.com, 8 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Practice by default: sheila otto
bmj.com, 8 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Inaccuracies: Timothy James
bmj.com, 8 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Burke judgement does not compel doctors to provide non-beneficial and wasteful life prolonging treatment: Peter KK Au-Yeung
bmj.com, 10 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Burke case is necessary: Adrian Joseph Treloar
bmj.com, 11 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Feeding and treatment - two different things: Rebecca E Brain
bmj.com, 12 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Withdrawal of feeding is not starvation: Neville W Goodman
bmj.com, 13 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Burke judgment is beneficial but incomplete: M D Dominic Bell
bmj.com, 20 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Why the GMC is wrong - an expert opinion: Charles H Davis
bmj.com, 21 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Medical Paternalism: Gregory Gardner, et al.
bmj.com, 26 Oct 2004 [Full text]
Why the GMC is right (for once . . .): Sarah Liv Andersen
bmj.com, 22 Apr 2005 [Full text]