Copyright 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.1998
To the Editor.—The article by Mr Gostin1 contains an error that should be corrected. The
article says, referring to a California case, "In Barber, for instance, two physicians were convicted of murder for terminating
life support at a patient's request, only to have the conviction vacated on
appeal." Apparently, this statement was made to demonstrate that physicians'
fear of legal action against them for terminating treatment was not entirely
unjustified in the 1970s and 1980s. The statement is incorrect for 2 reasons:
The patient in that case, Clarence Herbert,2,3
underwent a routine surgical procedure from which he emerged in a permanently
comatose condition. Herbert's family alleged that the treating physicians
had told them that Herbert was brain dead. He was not and continued to breath
after the respirator was removed with the family's consent. Two days later,
the family agreed to the removal of intravenous nutrition and hydration, and
Herbert died. The patient never requested the removal of life support, but
his family agreed to it after receiving questionable information. This set
of circumstances makes this far from the typical withholding-treatment case.
Glantz LH. Deciding Life and Death in the Courtroom: Debate and Clarification. JAMA. 1998;279(16):1259–1261. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-279-16-jac80007
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.