FRED ROSNER, M.D.
This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access.
To the editor: In commenting on the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in the case of Claire Conroy, Lo and Dornbrand (1) point out that the court rejected the distinction between ordinary (for example, food and water) and extraordinary (for example, mechanical ventilation) treatment and ruled that artificial feedings do not differ from other life-sustaining treatments. A decade earlier, the same New Jersey Supreme Court authorized the removal of Karen Ann Quinlan's respirator. When Quinlan's father was asked whether he wanted intravenous feedings stopped, he expressed amazement, saying, "Oh no, that is her nourishment," clearly making a sharp distinction between
ROSNER F. Withholding Therapy and Anti-Cruelty Policies. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:468–469. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-105-3-468_2
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 1986;105(3):468-469.
Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use