Document Type


Publication Date



Overwhelming evidence indicates that physicians routinely ignore patient preferences about life-sustaining care. Yet, the ability of wrongfully treated patients to recover compensatory damages has recently been placed in doubt. Both courts and commentators have suggested that actions for unconsented life support are analogous to actions for wrongful life and should, for that reason, be rejected. In this article, Professor Philip Peters argues that the obvious similarity between the two kinds of claims is overshadowed by many factors that distinguish the two settings. As a result, Professor Peters concludes that a physician who wrongfully administers life-sustaining care over the objections of the patient or her proxy should be liable for compensatory damages.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.