The sentiment argument emphasizes the unique symbolic significance of nourishment and associated deep seated emotions. The argument distinguishes between medical treatments which may be discontinued when there is little or no hope of recovery, and artificial feeding which should not be. To withhold basic sustenance is to starve someone to death. The article describes the probable origins of our feelings about food and drink and shows how they are rooted in our every day world of experience. It is argued that such feelings cannot be transfered without distortion to the hospital world. Rather, authentic sentiment seems to demand discontinuance of artificial feeding of the dying person.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CallahanD.On Feeding the Dying, Hastings Center Reports, 13:10, p. 22, 1983.
2.
CarsonR. A.The Symbolic Significance of Giving to Eat, in By No Extraordinary Means: The Choice to Forgo Life-Sustaining Food and Drink, LynnJ. (ed.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1986.
3.
Lévi-StraussC.The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1969.
4.
Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, Inc., 398 Mass. 417, 497 N.E.2d 626 (1986).
5.
In re Requena, 213 N.J. Super. 443, 517 A.2d 869 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986).
