Can an effective end‐of‐life intervention for advanced dementia be viewed as moral?

Abstract

Abstract Many people dread prolonged dying with suffering in the terminal illness, advanced dementia. To successfully facilitate a timely dying, advance directives must be effective and acceptable. This article considers whether authorities, including treating physicians, can accept as moral, the effective intervention that ceases caregivers’ assistance with oral feeding and hydrating. The article presents eight criticisms and “alternate views” regarding ceasing assisted feeding/hydrating. It draws on perspectives from clinical medicine, law, ethics, and religion. The conflict is between (A) people's core beliefs that reflect cultural norms and religious teachings regarding what is moral versus (B) patients’ autonomous right of self‐determination and claim right to avoid suffering. The article presents each side as strongly as possible. Accepting the intervention as moral could allow patients a peaceful and timely dying from patients’ underlying disease. Confidence in future success can deter patients and their surrogates from considering a hastened dying in earlier stages of dementia.

Keywords

• advance instructional directives
• advanced dementia
• allowing dying versus killing
• catholic principle of proportionality
• ceasing oral nutrition and hydration
• end‐of‐life interventions