Limited-Objective Test

Along with the pure-objective and subjective tests, one of the best interests standards used by courts of law for determining whether or not life-sustaining treatment may be withheld or withdrawn from an incompetent patient without an advance directive. According to this test, life-sustaining treatment may be withheld or withdrawn when there is some trustworthy evidence that the patient would have refused treatment and the surrogate is satisfied that "the burdens of the patient’s continued life with the treatment outweigh the benefits of that life for him" (In re Conroy, 486 A. 2d. 1209). While the evidence that the patient would have refused treatment should be similar to that of the subjective test, the inclusion of benefit and burden analysis allows the use of evidence that would otherwise be too vague, casual, or remote to satisfy the subjective test. This judicial description of benefits/burdens analysis must be distinguished from the benefits/burdens analysis employed in the principle of proportionate/ disproportionate means. This judicial analysis focuses entirely on the burdens and benefits of the patient’s life, whereas many other ethical perspectives, including the Catholic moral tradition, focus on the burdens and benefits that a treatment may have on a patient’s life in particular circumstances. (See also the legal case of Claire Conroy.)

Return to Issues & Concepts

Return to For the Public - Table of Contents

Return to For Affiliates - Table of Contents

© 2007 Ascension Health