The question of tube feeding often presents great challenges for the physician. Catholic moral teaching can be of great help to all people of good will in meeting this challenge. The Church teaches that tube feeding is, in principle, ordinary care and hence morally obligatory. How should clinicians go about deciding when to recommend tube feeding in a manner that serves the best interests of the patient and is in harmony with the Church's teaching? A PEG tube should be recommended when a patient is not eating or drinking adequately, has more than a short-term need, is not imminently dying, and has no contraindication to a PEG. This article presents a step-by-step discussion of the decision-making process to assist physicians and other health-care professionals. A decision tree is included that is clinically focused, practical, and straightforward. The authors represent a broad range of Catholic clinical experience. Practical suggestions are offered regarding how to go about discussing this difficult subject with patients and their families. The issues of patient refusal, advance directives, and physician recusal from care are addressed. A chronological reading list on the subject of PEG tubes is provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Foundational Reading:
2.
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 5th ed.Washington, D.C.: USCCB, 2009. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf. Especially relevant are directives 23, 32, and 58. Directive 58, which directly addresses assisted nutrition and hydration, was recently revised (December 2009) and is quoted here in full: “In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the ‘persistent vegetative state’) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care. Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be ‘excessively burdensome for the patient or (would) cause significant physical discomfort, for example, resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.’ For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: USCCB, 1994. Particularly relevant are the following sections: “In the Image of God,” nn. 356-361; “Respect for Health,” nn. 2288-2291; and “Euthanasia,” nn. 2276-2279.
BrueraE., and SweeneyC.“Hydrate or Dehydrate.”Support Care Cancer9 (2001): 139–140.
11.
SassonM., and ShvartzmanP.“Hypodermoclysis: An Alternative Infusion Technique.”American Family Physician64 (2001): 1575–1579.
12.
JansenLA., and SulmasyD.P.“Sedation, Alimentation, Hydration, and Equivocation: Careful Conversation about Care at the End of Life.”Annals of Internal Medicine136 (2002): 845–849.
13.
RocheV.“Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy. Clinical Care of PEG Tubes in Older Adults.”Geriatrics58.11 (November, 2003): 22–29.
14.
EganG.“Neural Correlates of the Emergence of Consciousness of Thirst.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Science100 (2003): 15241–15246.
15.
PoolR.“‘You're Not Going to Dehydrate Mom, Are You?’: Euthanasia, Versterving, and Good Death in the Netherlands.”Social Science & Medicine58 (2004): 955–966.
TollefsenC, ed. Artificial Nutrition and Hydration: The New Catholic Debate.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2008.
18.
KopaczynskiG.“Providing Assisted Nutrition and Hydration.” InCatholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Practitioners, ed. FurtonEdward, 202–206. Philadelphia: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009.
19.
Consortium of Jesuit Bioethics Programs. “Undue Burden? The Vatican and Artificial Nutrition and Hydration.”Commonweal136. 3 (February 13, 2009): 13–15.
20.
Catholic Medical Association. “Response to the Consortium of Jesuit Bioethics Programs Statement ‘Undue Burden?’”Linacre Quarterly76 (2009): 296–303.
21.
MontiW.M.“Willful modulation of Brain Activity in Disorders of Consciousness.”New England Journal of Medicine362 (2010): 579–589.
22.
DundonS.“Denying Food and Water.”National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly10 (2010): 695–705.
23.
HilliardM.“Utilitarianism Impacting Care of Those with Disabilities and Those at Life's End.”Linacre Quarterly78 (2011): 59–71.
24.
TravalineJ.M., and BergT.V.“Editorial: Perspectives on Directive 58.”Linacre Quarterly78 (2011): 8–12.
25.
LavastidaJ.I.“Nutrition and Hydration at the End of Life.”Homiletic and Pastoral Review (March 2011): 28–41.
26.
HenkeD.E.“Persistent Unconsciousness and the Use of Assisted Nutrition and Hydration: Medical and Moral Reflections.”Linacre Quarterly78 (2011): 138–156.
27.
ItkinM.“Multidisciplinary Practical Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Access for Enteral Nutrition and Decompression From the Society of Interventional Radiology and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute, With Endorsement by Canadian Interventional Radiological Association (CIRA) and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE).”Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology22 (2011): 1089–1106.
