The Difficult Decision Not to Prescribe Artificial Nutrition by Health Professionals and Family: Bioethical Aspects

Introduction

Bioethics and nutrition are essential issues in end of life, advanced dementia, life-sustaining therapies, permanent vegetative status, and unacceptably minimal quality of life. Even though artificially administered nutrition (AAN), for this type of health condition, does not improve quality of life and extension of life, and there is evidence of complications (pulmonary and gastrointestinal), it has been used frequently. It had been easier considering cardiopulmonary resuscitation as an ineffective treatment than AAN for a healthy team and/or family. For this reason, many times, this issue has been forgotten.

Objectives

This study aimed to discuss bioethical principles and AAN in the involved patients.

Discussion

The AAN has been an essential source of ethical concern and controversy. There is a conceptual doubt about AAN be or not be a medical treatment. It would be a form of nourishment, which constitutes primary care. These principles should be used to guide the decision-making of healthcare professionals in collaboration with patients and their surrogates.

Conclusions

This difficult decision about whether or not to prescribe AAN in patients with a poor prognosis and without benefits should be based on discussions with the bioethics committee, encouraging the use of advanced directives, education, and support for the patient, family, and health team, in addition to the establishment of effective protocols on the subject. All of this would benefit the most important person in this process, the patient.

[Evidence-based medicine]

Evidence-based medicine has been described as a new approach to teaching and practicing clinical medicine. Although the search for evidence is an established practice among physicians, what is being proposed is the systematic gathering and critical interpretation of data, which can then be used in the appropriate context. The main objective is to provide better care for patients. This is accomplished by transforming clinical problems in specific questions to be answered by searching the literature for the levels of evidence favoring the possible interventions for one particular case. This has to be done in a systematic and conscientious fashion. Through its method, evidence-based medicine places less value on clinical experience, the study understanding of pathophysiology, and common sense; instead, it emphasizes observation, levels of evidence, and critical interpretation of original literature. In this manner, evidence-based medicine may be seen by the authoritarian physician as a threat. Other obstacles to the acceptance of the method include lack of time and lack of familiarity with computers. One important limitation of evidence-based medicine is the incomplete or contradictory evidence available in many areas of clinical medicine, or the so-called "grey zones". We outline the main aspects of evidence-based medicine, expecting a growing interest among brazilian physicians for this useful clinical tool.