Related Experiment Videos
Artificial feeding--solid ground, not a slippery slope
1Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
The New England Journal of Medicine
|February 4, 1988
Summary
Decisions on artificial feeding are controversial. A court ruled that artificial feeding can be withdrawn from patients in a persistent vegetative state if it aligns with their prior wishes.
Area of Science:
- Medical Ethics
- Bioethics
- Legal Medicine
Background:
- Artificial feeding decisions are highly controversial, often conflated with basic humane care.
- Historically, food and water provision symbolized love and concern, complicating withdrawal decisions.
Observation:
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts made a landmark ruling regarding artificial feeding.
- The case involved Paul E. Brophy, Sr., a patient in a persistent vegetative state.
Findings:
- The court ruled that artificial feeding tubes could be removed if consistent with the patient's previously expressed wishes.
- This decision reflects an emerging medical and legal consensus on withholding artificial nutrition and hydration.
Implications:
- Artificial feeding should be viewed as a medical intervention, not routine care.
- Competent patients can refuse artificial feeding; incompetent patients can have it withdrawn if they previously stated this wish.