This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (43)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Rebecca S. Dresser, JD; Eugene V. Boisaubin, Jr, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1985;145(1):122-124.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Nutritional assessment and support of patients have evolved into well-accepted medical practices in the last ten years. Enteral and intravenous (IV) feeding procedures are a routine component of the medical treatment of a large number of patients, both in and out of hospitals. Clinicians today also possess the technical means to nourish a group of patients that previously could not be supported: unconscious patients incapable of taking food orally. With advanced techniques of nutritional support, however, come questions about the propriety of their administration to particular patients. Just as many choices about medical care are influenced by moral beliefs and legal considerations, so are decisions to deliver or withhold nutrition. This article discusses ethical and legal issues raised in these situations and analyzes a case in which the choice of whether to feed the patient depends heavily on the application of two moral principles—beneficence and autonomy.

Feeding unconscious patients can . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Center for Ethics, Medicine and Public Issues (Dr Dresser) and the Department of Medicine (Dr Boisaubin), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication April 27, 1984.

Reprints not available.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?