FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 347:1119 October 3, 2002 Number 14 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

To the Editor: The commentary by Lo et al. (May 9 issue)¹ demonstrates concern about the impact of the California Supreme Court's decision in the Wendland case² and provides some welcome advice for physicians with regard to their responses to that decision.

The decision itself acknowledged its very limited application, including the application only to court-appointed conservators. It is ironic that if Robert Wendland's wife had not allowed herself to be made a legal conservator, she would have remained the common-law surrogate, and Mr. Wendland's physician could have removed the tube feedings at her request on the basis of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.