‘Professor Gillon would argue that the judgment in the case of a patient in prolonged and incurable “minimally conscious state”, that she must continue to be kept alive with artificial nutrition and hydration, despite the evidence from her loved ones that she would have rejected such treatment, manifests an excessive concern for the “sanctity of life” and inadequate concern both for patients’ prior views values and autonomy and about the use of scarce health service resources on patients whose loved ones reliably report that they would have rejected those resources had they been able to do so.’
Gresham College, 12th February 2014
Source: www.gresham.ac.uk
