Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The most controversial issue in the Dutch euthanasia practice concerns the performance of euthanasia in a case of a patient in an advanced state of dementia on the basis of a request that is laid down in an advance directive. This is particularly controversial when such a patient, although lacking decisional capacity on the matter, shows signs of a wish to live. In two important verdicts of April 21 2020 the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that a request that has been made competently cannot be revoked incompetently. In this comment I consider two recent documents from Dutch professional organisations that are contrary to these decisions, in particular a guideline stating that on a proper understanding of decisional capacity the expression of a wish to live of a demented person, however inarticulate, should always be considered to be made competently.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!