Withholding or Withdrawing Artificially-administered Nutrition and Hydration
Patients who once would have died because of their inability to take food and water by mouth can today be kept alive through artificially-administered nutrition and hydration. These measures are often temporary and allow many to recover health. At other times, however, they alone maintain life, and they may do so indefinitely. In those cases, is it ever morally permissible to withhold or withdraw such measures?
Food and water are part of basic human care. Artificially-administered nutrition and hydration move beyond basic care to become medical treatment. Health care professionals are not required to use all available medical treatment in all circumstances. Medical treatment may be limited in some instances, and death allowed to occur. Patients have a right to refuse unduly burdensome treatments which are disproportionate to the expected benefits. When medical judgment determines that artificially-administered nutrition and hydration will not contribute to an improvement in the patient’s underlying condition or prevent death from that condition, patients or their legal spokespersons may consider them unduly burdensome treatment. In these circumstances it may be morally responsible to withhold or withdraw them and allow death to occur. This decision does not mean that family and friends are abandoning their loved one. When artificially-administered nutrition and hydration are withheld or withdrawn, family, friends, health care professionals, and pastor should continue to care for the person. They are to provide relief from suffering, physical comfort, and assurance of God’s enduring love.
Refusal of Beneficial Treatment
Patients and health care professionals share a common concern that medical treatment be beneficial. In most situations, they have a common understanding of that benefit. When agreement exists, patients generally are willing to receive treatment. There are situations, however, when patients and health care professionals disagree on what will benefit the patient, or on whether the expected benefit is worth the risks and burdens involved. What is morally responsible in these situations? Because competent patients are the prime decision-makers, they may refuse treatment recommended by health care professionals when they do not believe the benefits outweigh the risks and burdens. This is also the case for patients who are incompetent, but who have identified their wishes through advance directives, living wills, and/or conversation with family or designated surrogates….
A patient’s refusal of beneficial treatment does not free health care professionals from the obligation to give basic human care and comfort throughout the dying process which may follow. Family, friends, and pastor need to accompany the person and share the promise of God’s faithfulness in life and death.
Physicians and other health care professionals also have responsibility to relieve suffering. This responsibility includes the aggressive management of pain, even when it may result in an earlier death.
— End-of-Life Decisions, ELCA Message (1992)