title: Barriers to forgoing nutrition and hydration in nursing homes.
abstract: In the two decades since the Karen Quinlan case first brought the issues that now go under the heading of the "right to die" to the attention of the courts and the public, a well-accepted legal consensus has developed about the law governing the forgoing of life-sustaining medical treatment. Law and clinical medical practice do not always run in tandem, however, and what law prescribes does not always occur in practice. One aspect of the legal consensus-that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical treatment and thus may be withheld or withdrawn according to the same procedures and standards as other life-sustaining medical treatments-is probably less well accepted than the remainder. For reasons that I will explain, this is understandable. But what is puzzling is that this element of the consensus seems to be even less well accepted in nursing homes than in acute-care hospitals.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Meisel
mesh_terms: D016223:Advance Directives / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D000368:Aged; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004750:Enteral Nutrition; D035082:Federal Government; D005440:Fluid Therapy; D033161:Government Regulation; D006707:Homes for the Aged / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D008483:Medical Assistance / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards; D009735:Nursing Homes / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D012297:Right to Die; D028761:Withholding Treatment