Case 27: Is Nutrition Expendable Stage 1. Presentation 1. Present the problem a. Identify the issue Mildred D, 78 years old suffers from diabetes, history of heart disease, has had two heart attacks. She has now had a stroke and is semicomatose and paralyzed kept alive by a feeding tube. A substantial portion of her brain has been destroyed by the stroke. She has previously indicated that in such a circumstance she would not want to be resuscitated. She is slowly deteriorating and it seems she will never return from her current condition. The children wish to remove the feeding tube but the physician objects that it is unethical to “starve” a patient so that she dies sooner. Option 1: The feeding tube is removed so that the patient dies sooner Option 2: The feeding tube is kept in so that the patient is sustained yet remains in a paralyzed semicomatose condition.
I would go with option 1: the feeding tube should be removed so that the patient dies sooner. No one should look at it as the patient is being starved. The patient clearly stated that she did not want to be resusitated and I am sure if she was alert and oriented she would say that she would not want to be in this position. The children have a right to say that the feeding tube should be taken out that way their mother is not in anymore pain.
I agree with Stefaney. The patient indicated that she would not want to be resuscitated, keeping her on a feeding tube is the same as life support, it's only slowing her imminent death and making it more painful on her and her children, it is not in anyway improving the quality of her life.
I think that the word "starving" is a buzzword that people use to try to build up fear towards the idea of taking away a feeding tube. To say "starve" implies that the individual desires food and feels the painful affects of "wasting away". This is not the case in situations that require a feeding tube. Often, the reason the person is on the feeding tube is becauase they don't desire food at all, or they aren't concious enough to eat or ask for food. During the process of death, the body's metabolism starts shuts down. At this point, we don't desire food. Forcing nutrients may keep the body alive a little longer, but depriving someone of forced nutrients will not cause them to suffer. I think in the light of Mildred's decision not to be resusitated, it is a disservice to her to keep her on the tube.
I think that since the patient is already in such a bad state that taking her off the feeding tube might be the right thing to do so she will not suffer any longer. The patient would not starve to death and the medical staff would make her comfortable throughout her time of not eating. I don't think it is necessary to keep her alive when she is at such a bad point in her life and does not want to continue going.
Case 27: Is Nutrition Expendable
ReplyDeleteStage 1. Presentation
1. Present the problem
a. Identify the issue
Mildred D, 78 years old suffers from diabetes, history of heart disease, has had two heart attacks. She has now had a stroke and is semicomatose and paralyzed kept alive by a feeding tube. A substantial portion of her brain has been destroyed by the stroke. She has previously indicated that in such a circumstance she would not want to be resuscitated. She is slowly deteriorating and it seems she will never return from her current condition. The children wish to remove the feeding tube but the physician objects that it is unethical to “starve” a patient so that she dies sooner.
Option 1: The feeding tube is removed so that the patient dies sooner
Option 2: The feeding tube is kept in so that the patient is sustained yet remains in a paralyzed semicomatose condition.
I would go with option 1: the feeding tube should be removed so that the patient dies sooner. No one should look at it as the patient is being starved. The patient clearly stated that she did not want to be resusitated and I am sure if she was alert and oriented she would say that she would not want to be in this position. The children have a right to say that the feeding tube should be taken out that way their mother is not in anymore pain.
DeleteI agree with Stefaney. The patient indicated that she would not want to be resuscitated, keeping her on a feeding tube is the same as life support, it's only slowing her imminent death and making it more painful on her and her children, it is not in anyway improving the quality of her life.
ReplyDeleteI think that the word "starving" is a buzzword that people use to try to build up fear towards the idea of taking away a feeding tube. To say "starve" implies that the individual desires food and feels the painful affects of "wasting away". This is not the case in situations that require a feeding tube. Often, the reason the person is on the feeding tube is becauase they don't desire food at all, or they aren't concious enough to eat or ask for food. During the process of death, the body's metabolism starts shuts down. At this point, we don't desire food. Forcing nutrients may keep the body alive a little longer, but depriving someone of forced nutrients will not cause them to suffer. I think in the light of Mildred's decision not to be resusitated, it is a disservice to her to keep her on the tube.
ReplyDeleteI think that since the patient is already in such a bad state that taking her off the feeding tube might be the right thing to do so she will not suffer any longer. The patient would not starve to death and the medical staff would make her comfortable throughout her time of not eating. I don't think it is necessary to keep her alive when she is at such a bad point in her life and does not want to continue going.
ReplyDelete