英文摘要 |
The Patient Right to Autonomy Act allows terminal and non-terminal patients who are under specific clinical conditions to refuse artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH). The Chinese Regional Bishops’ Conference opposes this Act, arguing that ANH is an ordinary method of care and, that unless the patient is dying or unable to absorb, there is an obligation to provide it. This article examines the refusal of ANH in the Patient Right to Autonomy Act from the perspective of traditional Catholic teaching on “ordinary and extraordinary means of conserving life.” It points out that both “ordinary and extraordinary means” and the Patient Right to Autonomy Act value the patient’s experience and wishes. When a patient is faced with the clinical conditions specified in the Patient Right to Autonomy Act, providing ANH may bring more burden than benefit, and hence it is argued that ANH is not necessarily an ordinary means. In addition, this paper proposes that instead of only using medical standards to assess whether one can refuse ANH under this Act, an analysis of benefit and burden from a patient’s perspective should also be included. This would make the Act more consistent with Catholic moral teachings. Finally, this paper recommends that Catholics be allowed to sign advance directives under this Act, as it is the only way one can legally express one’s wishes on such an important healthcare decision and be able to refuse ANH when it becomes an extraordinary means. |