title: Intensity of treatment in malnutrition. The ethical considerations.
abstract: Decisions about initiation and withdrawal of life-sustaining artificial nutrition and hydration are complex and sometimes are agonizing to make. Artificial feeding is considered by most medical ethicists to be a medical intervention about which decisions should be made based on the benefits, risks, and burdens of the treatment. State law varies, particularly with regard to the inclusion of artificial feeding in advance directives and in laws about its discontinuance. Conditions in which it is common for patients or families to consider refusal of artificial feeding include terminal cancer, advanced dementia, and persistent vegetative state. Alternative approaches to nutrition, such as offering favorite foods or treating underlying depression, may obviate the need for tube feeding. Competent patients may refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment. An appropriate proxy decision maker may also refuse treatment on behalf of a mentally incapacitated patient.
authors.affiliation: Stanford University, California.
authors.forename: M K
authors.initials: MK
authors.lastname: Goldstein
authors.forename: J D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Fuller
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D018864:Cultural Diversity; D003657:Decision Making; D004750:Enteral Nutrition / Q000009:adverse effects; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D009748:Nutrition Disorders / Q000178:diet therapy*; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010819:Physician's Role; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012945:Social Values; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D006113:United Kingdom; D014481:United States; D028761:Withholding Treatment