This paper discusses the morality and legality of withholding food and fluid in terminal and other cases. Is the provision of nutrition strictly for the purpose of sustaining life, a medical treatment, or part of basic nursing care? The author argues that, if regarded as a treatment modality, such as artificial respiration or dialysis, the withholding of nutrition can be justified in some circumstances. The author also looks at court decisions regarding the question of homicide as the cause of death in cases where medical treatment was withdrawn or terminated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barber and Nejdle vs Sup. Ct., 2 Civil No. 69350, 69351, Ct. of App. 2nd Dist., Div. 2, Oct. 12, 1983. This case is reviewed in considerable detail in Bonnie Steinbock, “The Removal of Mr. Herbert's Feeding Tube,” The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 13, No. 5, October 1983.
2.
Deciding to forego life-sustaining treatment: Ethical, medical and legal issues in treatment decisions. Prepared by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983: ch.4.
3.
Euthanasia, aiding suicide and cessation of treatment. Prepared by The Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 28. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1982: part 3, Sec. III. (See also this Commission's final report of the same title, No. 20.)
4.
“In the Matter of Conroy”, Sup. Ct. NJ App. Div., A2483-82, July 8, 1983. I take this quotation from George Annas, “Nonfeeding: Lawful Killing in CA, Homicide in NJ,” The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 13, No. 6, December 1983. Annas contrasts and comments upon “Barber and Nejdle” and “Conroy” but without reaching any firm conclusions. The case of Conroy has since been reviewed by the New Jersey Supreme Court which, with extensive qualification, has upheld the original ruling.
