Explore the vast range of titles available.

During the past few decades, high-profile cases like that of Terry Schiavo have fueled the public debate over forgoing or withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). These cases, whether involving adults or young children, have forced many to begin thinking in a measured and careful way about the moral legitimacy of allowing patients to die. Can families forgo or withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition from their loved ones when no hope of recovery seems possible? Many Catholics know that Catholic moral theology has formulated a well-developed and well-reasoned position on this and other end-of-life issues, one that distinguishes between \"ordinary\" and \"extraordinary\" treatment. But recent events have caused uncertainty and confusion and even acrimony among the faithful. In his 2004 allocution, Pope John Paul II proposed that artificial nutrition and hydration is a form of basic care, thus suggesting that the provision of such care to patients neurologically incapable of feeding themselves should be considered a moral obligation. The pope's address, which seemed to have offered a new development to decades of Catholic health care ethics, sparked a contentious debate among the faithful over how best to treat permanently unconscious patients within the tenets of Catholic morality. In this comprehensive and balanced volume, Ronald Hamel and James Walter present twenty-one essays and articles, contributed by physicians, clergy, theologians, and ethicists, to reflect the spectrum of perspectives on the issues that define the Catholic debate. Organized into six parts, each with its own introduction, the essays offer clinical information on PVS and feeding tubes; discussions on the Catholic moral tradition and how it might be changing; ecclesiastical and pastoral statements on forgoing or withdrawing nutrition and hydration; theological and ethical analyses on the issue; commentary on Pope John Paul II's 2004 allocution; and the theological commentary, court decisions, and public policy resulting from the Clarence Herbert and Claire Conroy legal cases. A valuable resource for students and scholars, this teachable volume invites theological dialogue and ethical discussion on one of the most contested issues in the church today.

Background/Objectives: Nutrition at the end of life raises many dilemmas. “End of life” refers to the period associated with a progressive incurable disease, with a life expectancy of less than six months, and limited curative treatments. In intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about artificial nutrition and hydration (clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, CANH) are especially complex because patient goals shift from survival to comfort. Nutrition and hydration are often requested by patients and their families, even when clinical benefits are uncertain. This article aims to provide a multidimensional analysis of the pathophysiological, clinical, ethical and legal considerations of nutritional support in the final stages of life. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of the literature published between January 2000 and June 2025 by searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases and included original articles, clinical trials, reviews, international guidelines, and public policy documents involving adult population at the end of life. The narrative approach enabled the multidimensional integration of the collected data. Results: Terminally ill patients often develop anorexia and cachexia leading to irreversible muscle loss and resistance to nutritional support. CANH (enteral or parenteral) has limited success and carries increased risks. In advanced cancer and dementia, studies do not show clear benefits for survival or quality of life. Nutritional counseling and oral supplements may help alleviate symptoms, but manual feeding remains the standard of care in the terminal stages. In ICU settings, starting or maintaining CANH demands careful evaluation of goals, prognosis, and burdens. Cultural legal differences and approaches between countries also influence clinical practice and family expectations. Conclusions: CANH at the end of life should be viewed as a medical intervention that requires both scientific and ethical justification. The decision to initiate or discontinue it should be individualized. Clear and empathetic communication between the medical team, patient, and family is essential to avoid inappropriate decisions.

Background The Patient Right to Autonomy Act (PRAA), implemented in Taiwan in 2019, enables the creation of advance decisions (AD) through advance care planning (ACP). This legal framework allows for the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST) or artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in situations like irreversible coma, vegetative state, severe dementia, or unbearable pain. This study aims to investigate preferences for LST or ANH across various clinical conditions, variations in participant preferences, and factors influencing these preferences among urban residents. Methods Employing a survey of legally structured AD documents and convenience sampling for data collection, individuals were enlisted from Taipei City Hospital, serving as the primary trial and demonstration facility for ACP in Taiwan since the commencement of the PRAA in its inaugural year. The study examined ADs and ACP consultation records, documenting gender, age, welfare entitlement, disease conditions, family caregiving experience, location of ACP consultation, participation of second-degree relatives, and the intention to participate in ACP. Results Data from 2337 participants were extracted from electronic records. There was high consistency in the willingness to refuse LST and ANH, with significant differences noted between terminal diseases and extremely severe dementia. Additionally, ANH was widely accepted as a time-limited treatment, and there was a prevalent trend of authorizing a health care agent (HCA) to make decisions on behalf of participants. Gender differences were observed, with females more inclined to decline LST and ANH, while males tended towards accepting full or time-limited treatment. Age also played a role, with younger participants more open to treatment and authorizing HCA, and older participants more prone to refusal. Conclusion Diverse preferences in LST and ANH were shaped by the public’s current understanding of different clinical states, gender, age, and cultural factors. Our study reveals nuanced end-of-life preferences, evolving ADs, and socio-demographic influences. Further research could explore evolving preferences over time and healthcare professionals’ perspectives on LST and ANH decisions for neurological patients..

Introduction The debate over use of artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in terminal illness, including advanced dementia, remains contentious despite extensive ethical and empirical investigation. Methods For this narrative review we undertook a focused, selective review of literature reflecting ethical analysis, empirical assessment of outcomes, legal responses, and thinking within the Roman Catholic religious tradition. Results The history of the debate over the past 60 years results from a complex interplay of ethical concerns, a growing empirical database, legal changes, public opinion, and financial as well as institutional concerns. Discussions of ANH today are often conducted without any understanding of this historical context. Discussion Patients’ interests could be better protected through remedial action at both the individual and the policy levels.

Withdrawal of artificially delivered nutrition and hydration (ANH) from patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) requires judicial approval in England and Wales, even when families and healthcare professionals agree that withdrawal is in the patient's best interests. Part of the rationale underpinning the original recommendation for such court approval was the reassurance of patients’ families, but there has been no research as to whether or not family members are reassured by the requirement for court proceedings or how they experience the process. The research reported here draws on in-depth narrative interviews with 10 family members (from five different families) of PVS patients who have been the subject of court proceedings for ANH-withdrawal. We analyse the empirical evidence to understand how family members perceive and experience the process of applying to the courts for ANH-withdrawal and consider the ethical and practice implications of our findings. Our analysis of family experience supports arguments grounded in economic and legal analysis that court approval should no longer be required. We conclude with some suggestions for how we might develop other more efficient, just and humane mechanisms for reviewing best interests decisions about ANH-withdrawal from these patients.

Introduction Families of patients with dementia may need support in difficult end-of-life decision making. Such guidance may be culturally sensitive. Methods To support families in Canada, a booklet was developed to aid decision making on palliative care issues. For reasons of cost effectiveness and promising effects, we prepared for its implementation in Italy, the Netherlands and Japan. Local teams translated and adapted the booklet to local ethical, legal and medical standards where needed, retaining guidance on palliative care. Using qualitative content analyses, we grouped and compared adaptations to understand culturally sensitive aspects. Results Three themes emerged: (1) relationships among patient, physician and other professionals—the authority of the physician was more explicit in adapted versions; (2) patient rights and family position—adding detail about local regulations; and (3) typology of treatments and decisions. Considerations underlying palliative care decisions were detailed (Dutch and Italian versions), and the Japanese version frequently referred to professional and legal standards, and life-prolongation was a competing goal. Text on artificial feeding or fluids and euthanasia was revised extensively. Conclusions Providing artificial feeding and fluids and discussing euthanasia may be particularly sensitive topics, and guidance on these subjects needs careful consideration of ethical aspects and possible adaptations to local standards and practice. The findings may promote cross-national debate on sensitive, core issues regarding end-of-life care in dementia.

I was recently invited to talk about ethics with the staff of a level‐three neonatal intensive care unit. They presented a case featuring a full‐term baby born by emergency caesarean‐section after a cord prolapse that caused prolonged anoxia. Her initial pH was 6.7. She was intubated and resuscitated in the delivery room. Her Apgar score remained at 1 for ten minutes. Further evaluation over the next two days revealed severe brain damage. Her prognosis was dismal. The doctors recommended a do‐not‐resuscitate order. The parents agreed. The doctors suggested a gastrostomy tube. The parents disagreed. Instead, they requested that fluid and nutrition be discontinued. The emotions in the room, as we started to discuss the case, were strong and discordant. Eventually, the conversation wound down. They turned, expectantly, to the visiting bioethicist.

This study surveyed 1,156 practicing US physicians to examine the relationship between physicians' religious characteristics and their approaches to artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH). Forty percent of physicians believed that unless a patient is imminently dying, the patient should always receive nutrition and fluids; 75 % believed that it is ethically permissible for doctors to withdraw ANH. The least religious physicians were less likely to oppose withholding or withdrawing ANH. Compared to non-evangelical Protestant physicians, Jews and Muslims were significantly more likely to oppose withholding ANH, and Muslims were significantly more likely to oppose withdrawing ANH.

Food and fluids are essential to life and play important social and psychological roles. Despite increased understanding of the appropriate use of artificial nutrition, its use is particularly challenging for professionals and families. This may be complicated by misunderstanding about its likely benefits and burdens, concern about patient suffering and ambivalence regarding the moral status of feeding. When patients are unable to meet their fluid and nutritional needs orally it is necessary to consider whether artificial nutrition is appropriate. Therapeutic decisions should be based on a clear understanding of the overall goals of care and the application of ethical principles that can provide a framework to guide practice.

In the twenty-first century, decisions to withhold or withdraw life-supporting measures commonly precede death in the neonatal intensive care unit without major ethical controversy. However, caregivers often feel much greater turmoil with regard to stopping medical hydration and nutrition than they do when considering discontinuation of mechanical ventilation or circulatory support. Nevertheless, forgoing medical fluids and food represents a morally acceptable option as part of a carefully developed palliative care plan considering the infant's prognosis and the burdens of continued treatment. Decisions to stop any form of life support should focus on the clinical circumstances, not the means used to sustain life.