Medical futility, treatment withdrawal and the persistent vegetative state.

Why do we persist in the relentless pursuit of artificial nourishment and other treatments to maintain a permanently unconscious existence? In facing the future, if not the present world-wide reality of a huge number of persistent vegetative state (PVS) patients, will they be treated because of our ethical commitment to their humanity, or because of an ethical paralysis in the face of biotechnical progress? The PVS patient is cut off from the normal patterns of human connection and communication, with a life unlike other forms of human existence. Why the struggle to justify ending a life which, it is said, has suffered an irreversible loss of the content of consciousness? Elsewhere, the authors have addressed the ethical controversies and confusion engendered by ambiguous terminology, misuse of medical facts and the differing interpretations of what constitutes 'effective' treatment: in particular, the issue of whether in fact artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical treatment, or simply part of the obligatory care owed to all patients, permanently unconscious or not. In this paper, we intend to argue that recent analyses of medical futility, its meaning and ethical implications, despite an absence of public consensus, permit some tentative re-evaluation of our ethical obligations to the PVS patient.

Teaching bioethics to medical students: the Newcastle experience.

Over the past two decades in the USA, bioethics has become an accepted component of medical education, whereas in Australia, 10 years or even less would encompass the history of most existing programmes. Given the legendary conservatism of medical schools in Australia and the intractability of the medical curriculum, this is still a remarkable achievement. But does the teaching of bioethics change the thinking and/or decision-making behaviour of medical students or practitioners exposed to such courses? Those involved know only too well how difficult such courses are to design and evaluate since the connection between ethics education and practice is not known and may never be demonstrated to the satisfaction of critics. Critics not only seek answers to the questions of whether the teaching of bioethics makes a difference, which is a fair question, but they also seek answers to the question of whether bioethics should be taught in medical schools. Can bioethics be taught? Whose bioethics is being taught? What does the trained bioethicist contribute? Some of these questions arise from misunderstanding and some reflect the still too dominant view in medical schools which divides disciplines into those which provide 'practical skills', and those which contribute only theoretical and therefore peripheral knowledge. The authors will address these questions in the light of their experience at Newcastle, Australia, where the Faculty of Medicine has been teaching bioethics for over a decade.