Pure-Objective Test

One of the best interests standards used in courts of law for determining whether or not life-sustaining treatment may be withheld or withdrawn from an incompetent patient who has not made an advance directive. In contrast to the subjective test and limited-objective test, the pure-objective test is used in the absence of evidence that the patient would have declined treatment. This test is a more stringent version of the benefit/burden prong of the limited-objective test and requires that "the burdens of the patient’s life with treatment clearly and markedly outweigh the benefits that the patient derives from life" (In re Conroy, 486 A. 2d. 1209). According to this test, the central measure by which burdens and benefits ought to be assessed is the amount of pain that the patient experiences, which makes this test inappropriate in cases where it cannot be determined if the patient is or is not capable of experiencing pain. 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