Has the sanctity of life law 'gone too far'?: analysis of the sanctity of life doctrine and English case law shows that the sanctity of life law has not 'gone too far'

Factors influencing the attitudes of NICU physicians toward care of neonates with very poor prognosis

Attitudes of physicians toward neonates with poor prognosis greatly influence their decisions regarding the course of treatment and care. The present study aimed to investigate factors contributing to attitudes of medical practitioners toward poor prognosis neonates. This was a cross-sectional, descriptive-analytic study. Questionnaires for assessing subjects' attitudes toward care of very poor prognosis neonates were administered to all neonatologists, pediatricians, neonatology assistants, and pediatric residents (a total of 88 individuals) working in the NICUs of Imam Khomeini Hospital. Participants' attitudes were determined through analysis of responses to seven questions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Presence of anomalies incompatible with an acceptable quality of life, birth weight, gestational age, responses to neonatal diagnostic tests, certain types of diseases, parental marital status and practitioner predictions about patient prognosis were the factors contributing to practitioners' attitude (P-value < 0.005). However, no significant relationship was found in connection with religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, opinions of consulting physicians, hospital treatment protocols, standards of the Association of Neonatal Physicians, and ethics committee expectations (P-value > 0.005). It can be concluded that the attitudes of practitioners toward intensive care of poor prognosis neonates is determined by the medical condition of the neonate rather than socio-demographic characteristics.

The Right to Die in Chronic Disorders of Consciousness: Can We Avoid the Slippery Slope Argument?

Managing individuals with chronic disorders of consciousness raises ethical questions about the appropriateness of maintaining life-sustaining treatments and end-of-life decisions for those who are unable to make decisions for themselves. For many years, the positions fostering the "sanctity" of human life (i.e., life is inviolable in any case) have led to maintaining life-sustaining treatments (including artificial nutrition and hydration) in patients with disorders of consciousness, allowing them to live for as long as possible. Seldom have positions that foster "dignity" of human life (i.e., everyone has the right to a worthy death) allowed for the interruption of life-sustaining treatments in some patients with disorders of consciousness. Indeed, most ethical analyses conclude that the decision to interrupt life-sustaining therapies, including artificial nutrition and hydration, should be guided by reliable information about how the patient wants or wanted to be treated and/or whether the patient wants or wanted to live in such a condition. This would be in keeping with the principles of patient-centered medicine, and would conciliate the duty of respecting both the dignity and sanctity of life and the right to a worthy death. This "right to die" has been recognized in some countries, which have legalized euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide, but some groups fear that legalizing end-of-life decisions for some patients may result in the inappropriate use of euthanasia, both voluntary and nonvoluntary forms (slippery slope argument) in other patients. This review describes the current opinions and ethical issues concerning end-of-life decisions in patients with disorders of consciousness, with a focus on the impact misdiagnoses of disorders of consciousness may have on end-of-life decisions, the concept of "dignity" and "sanctity" of human life in view of end-of-life decisions, and the risk of the slippery slope argument when dealing with euthanasia and end-of-life decisions. We argue that the patient's diagnosis, prognosis, and wishes should be central to determining the most appropriate therapeutic approach and end-of-life decisions for that individual. Each patient's diagnosis, prognosis, and wishes should also be central to legislation that guarantees the right to die and prevents the slippery slope argument through the establishment of evidence-based criteria and protocol for managing these patients with disorders of consciousness.

Religious, Ethical and Legal Considerations in End-of-Life Issues: Fundamental Requisites for Medical Decision Making

Religion and spirituality have always played a major and intervening role in a person's life and health matters. With the influential development of patient autonomy and the right to self-determination, a patient's religious affiliation constitutes a key component in medical decision making. This is particularly pertinent in issues involving end-of-life decisions such as withdrawing and withholding treatment, medical futility, nutritional feeding and do-not-resuscitate orders. These issues affect not only the patient's values and beliefs, but also the family unit and members of the medical profession. The law also plays an intervening role in resolving conflicts between the sanctity of life and quality of life that are very much pronounced in this aspect of healthcare. Thus, the medical profession in dealing with the inherent ethical and legal dilemmas needs to be sensitive not only to patients' varying religious beliefs and cultural values, but also to the developing legal and ethical standards as well. There is a need for the medical profession to be guided on the ethical obligations, legal demands and religious expectations prior to handling difficult end-of-life decisions. The development of comprehensive ethical codes in congruence with developing legal standards may offer clear guidance to the medical profession in making sound medical decisions.