Advertisement

Medical Feeding: Applying Husserl and Merleau-Ponty

  • Michael C. Brannigan
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 68)

Abstract

Although medical ethics’ vast literature devotes sparse attention to the Claire Conroy case, it remains a legal landmark. Through the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1985 set a legal precedent in ruling that the artificial provision of nutrition and hydration via nasogastric feeding was considered medical treatment in the technical sense and thereby subject to treatment that an individual patient had the legal right to refuse. Imposing such treatment upon the patient without the patient’s consent could constitute a violation of that patient’s privacy.

Keywords

Natural Attitude Nasogastric Feeding Incompetent Patient Circular Causality Existential Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Brannigan, M.C.: 2001, ‘Re-Assessing the ordinary/extraordinary distinction in withholding/withdrawing nutrition and hydration’, in M.C. Brannigan and J.A. Boss (eds.), Healthcare Ethics in a Diverse Society, Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, California, pp. 516–522.Google Scholar
  2. Brannigan, M.C: 1992, ‘Reversibility as a radical ground for an ontology of the body in medicine’, Personalist Forum 8, 1, Supplement.Google Scholar
  3. Brannigan, M.C: 1990, ‘Approaching an ontology of the body’, American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine, 89, 3, 114-17.Google Scholar
  4. Brannigan, M.C: 1985, ‘A phenomenological orientation to illness and ethical implications’, Contemporary Philosophy, 10, 8, 6-8.Google Scholar
  5. In re Conroy, App. Div. 1983, 190 N.J. Super, 453, 464, A2d 303, 304 n.l.Google Scholar
  6. Stryker, J.: 1986, ‘In re Conroy: History and setting of the case’, in J. Lynne (ed.), By No Extraordinary Means, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  7. Merleau-Ponty, M.: 1968, The Visible and the Invisible, C Lefort (ed.), Alphonso Lingis (trans.), Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
  8. Merleau-Ponty, M.: 1964a, Le visible et I’invisible, C. Lefort (ed.), Gallimard, Paris.Google Scholar
  9. Merleau-Ponty, M.: 1964b, ‘The child’s relations with others’, in J. M. Edie (ed.), W. Cobb (trans.), The Primacy of Perception, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
  10. Merleau-Ponty, M.: 1962, Phenomenology of Perception (1962), C. Smith (trans.), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  11. Pellegrino, E. and Thomasma, D.: 1981, A Philosophical Basis of Medical Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Zaner, R.M.: 1981, The Context of Self: A Phenomenological Inquiry Using Medicine as a Clue, Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Brannigan
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Ethics and Department of PhilosophyLa Roche CollegePittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations