Article
|
|
|
Services
|
|
|
Google Scholar
|
|
|
PubMed
|
|
|
|
REPLY
Physician Involvement in Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking
Lynn A. Jansen, RN, PhD, and
Daniel P. Sulmasy, OFM, MD, PhD
17 December 2002 | Volume 137 Issue 12 | Page 1011
IN RESPONSE:
The letter by Gert and colleagues begins inauspiciously. They claim mistakenly that we categorized as immoral their position that physicians should notify dying patients who request physician-assisted suicide that, as an alternative, they may stop eating and drinking. We made no such claim. As is abundantly clear from our article, we advanced a much more modest claim: that if a patient's voluntary refusal of food and fluids were equivalent to suicide, and if a clinician were to believe that this patient's suicide would be immoral, then it would be wrong for a clinician to inform the patient that he or she had a legal right to stop eating and drinking. This is part of the moral complexity that we claimed proponents of the practice of voluntary refusal of hydration and nutrition have failed to address. Gert and colleagues attempt to address this complexity by invoking the concept of moral paternalism. While we welcome careful discussion about the nature and limits of paternalism in medicine, their proposal that a physician should not withhold information if it is not universally agreed that withholding such information would be morally correct is unhelpful. If a clinician were to inform a seriously depressed but otherwise healthy patient that he has a legal right to refuse food and fluids as a means to committing suicide, then the clinician's conduct clearly would be wrong. This would remain true even if there were, as there no doubt are, some persons who think otherwise.
The real issue concerns what a patient has a moral right to know. The voluntary refusal of foods and fluids by patients who are capable of eating and drinking is not currently the standard of care in palliative medicine. For this reason, clinicians who oppose this practice do not deny their patients information they are entitled to have when they do not inform them of this option. Failure to grasp this point may have led Gert and colleagues to claim falsely that patient refusal of hydration and nutrition is a practice that avoids moral controversy altogether.
|
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
Top
Author & Article Info
|
|---|
Saint Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center; New York, NY 10011
About Letters
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
Type with double-spacing
Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
Related articles in Annals:
-
Perspectives
Sedation, Alimentation, Hydration, and Equivocation: Careful Conversation about Care at the End of Life
Lynn A. Jansen AND Daniel P. Sulmasy
- Annals 2002 136: 845-849.
[ABSTRACT][Full Text]