Skip to main content

Blogs to Boards: Question 3


This is the third in a series of 41 posts from both GeriPal and Pallimed to get our physician readers ready for the hospice and palliative medicine boards. Every week GeriPal and Pallimed alternates publishing a new question, as well as a discussion of possible answers to the question (click here for the full list of questions).  


Question 3

During a hospice interdisciplinary team meeting, you hear about a 53 year old resident of the local nursing home. He has ALS with bulbar attributes, and is starting to have difficulty swallowing and speaking. He is bedbound most of the day. He has had two episodes of aspiration pneumonia in the last month.

His nurse describes the scene with the patient’s wife, Sally, at his side, squeezing his hand with one hand and her rosary with the other.

He explained to the nurse, “I told Sally that I don’t want a feeding tube. I’ve had a good life and have few regrets. I saw my father-in-law die on a feeding tube and I would not want to go through that, or put my wife through that. But I am Catholic. Our friend at the parish said that I have to ‘do everything’ to prolong my life – especially when it comes to nutrition - or I will go hell. I don’t want to go to hell.” His wife nods emphatically.

During the interdisciplinary care meeting, the chaplain (in his role as teacher) asks you to explain to the team what your understanding of the Catholic doctrine is as pertaining to this patient.

What do you say?

a) My understanding is that medically assisted nutrition is obligatory for patients who are unable to take food by mouth. 
b) My understanding is that medically assisted nutrition is morally optional for most patients at the end of life.


Discussion:

Comments

Shoty Poonom said…
You are posting a quality Halthy servicing article. There is most quality & great service. Maybe I will take your service recently.
Thank
Shoty Poonom
"Ross Finesmith MD"
Marie T. Hilliard said…
Neither one of these two options addresses the question. Each patient is a patient unto him/herself, for whom the burdens, risks, side effects of any intervention must be weighed in relationship to the proportionate benefit of the intervention to the patient. The Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services state:
58. In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the “persistent vegetative state”) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care.40 Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be “excessively burdensome for the patient or [would] cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.”41 For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort.

Popular posts from this blog

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Does “compassionate deception” have a place in palliative care?

by: Olivia Gamboa (@Liv_g_g)

There is broad consensus in the medical community that lying to patients is unethical.  However, in the care of patients with dementia, the moral clarity of this approach blurs.  In her recent New Yorker article, “The Memory House,”  Larissa MacFarquhar provides an excellent portrait of the common devices of artifice, omission and outright deception that are frequently deployed in the care of patients with dementia.  She furthermore explores the historical and ethical underpinnings of the various approaches used in disclosing (or not) information to patients living with dementia.

Ms. MacFarquhar introduces the idea of “compassionate deception,” or the concept that withholding truths, or even promoting outright falsehoods, is a reasonable and even ethical choice for those caring for patients with dementia.  To the extent that it helps a person with dementia feel happier and calmer, allowing them to believe in a gentler reality (one in which, say, their spo…