• Online Features  This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • 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 (21)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

BERNARD LO, MD; LAURIE DORNBRAND, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(9):1925-1926.

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

Tube feedings for patients with severe dementia, metastatic cancer, or stroke present controversial management decisions. Artificial feedings might benefit patients by reversing malnutrition or dehySee also p 1937. dration and prolonging life in patients who are unable to take adequate nutrition by mouth. But Quill's¹ careful empirical study shows that feeding tubes may not accomplish these goals and may impose significant burdens on patients with severe, irreversible illness.

TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BENEFIT THE PATIENT

Philosophers have asserted that medicine should benefit the patient, according to the patient's definition of benefit.² Feeding tubes can benefit patients when they provide time to treat underlying medical problems or clarify prognosis or when prolongation of life is feasible and desirable. But Quill found that feeding tubes seldom gained time for underlying reversible conditions to be successfully treated. In only two cases were feeding tubes removed because patients improved. It is questionable whether feeding . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?