When Burdens of Feeding Outweigh Benefits

On 21 October 1985, a Massachusetts probate court ruled in Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, denying Mrs. Paul Brophy's request that physicians remove the gastrostomy tube from her husband, who had been in a persistant vegetative state for over two years. Paris, a Roman Catholic priest and a professor of medical ethics who was called as an expert witness on behalf of the Brophy family, had testified previously in the Barber and Conroy cases. His testimony, printed here in edited form, is based on the rulings in these cases, as well as the Hier decision, on the 1983 President's Commission report, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment, and on published articles arguing both sides of the withholding food and fluids controversy. Paris concludes that there is no moral obligation to order, provide, or accept any treatment, even food and water, when there is little or no promise of benefit to a patient with a virtually hopeless prognosis

Citation · Expert witness · Library science · Medical ethics · Medical library · Political science · Sociology · Witness · Computer Science · Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education · Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations · Law · Psychology

• Death with Dignity

  Open Access•R J Connelly•Journal of Religion and Health•1998

  Add to list