Objectives To examine the frequency and characteristics of decisions to forgo artificial nutrition and/or hydration at the end of life.Design Postal questionnaire survey regarding end-of-life decisions to physicians certifying a large representative sample of Belgian death certificates in 2007.Setting Flanders, Belgium, 2007.Participants Treating physicians of deceased patients.Results Response rate was 58.4%. A decision to forgo ANH occurred in 6.6% of all deaths . Being female, dying in a care home or hospital and suffering from nervous system diseases or malignancies were (...) the most important patient-related factors positively associated with a decision to forgo ANH. Physicians indicated that the decision to forgo ANH had had some life-shortening effects in 77% of cases. There had been no consultation with the patient in 81%, mostly due to incapacity . The family, colleague physicians and nurses were involved in decision making in 76%, 41% and 62%, respectively.Conclusions A substantial number of deaths are preceded by a decision to forgo ANH in Belgium. These decisions, ethically laden and involving a considerable chance of life shortening, are mostly not preceded by discussion with the patient despite existing patient rights legislation. It is recommended that physicians and patients and their families alike dedicate ample time to the discussion of treatment options and communication about the possibility of forgoing ANH and that this discussion takes place earlier as part of overall end-of-life care planning rather than at the very end of life. (shrink)

Dr Gillian Craig (1) has argued that palliative medicine services have tended to adopt a policy of sedation without hydration, which under certain circumstances may be medically inappropriate, causative of death and distressing to family and friends. We welcome this opportunity to defend, with an important modification, the approach we proposed without substantive background argument in our original article (2). We maintain that slowing and eventual cessation of oral intake is a normal part of a natural dying process, that artificial (...) hydration and alimentation (AHA) are not justified unless thirst or hunger are present and cannot be relieved by other means, but food and fluids for (natural) oral consumption should never be 'withdrawn'. The intention of this practice is not to alter the timing of an inevitable death, and sedation is not used, as has been alleged, to mask the effects of dehydration or starvation. The artificial provision of hydration and alimentation is now widely accepted as medical treatment. We believe that arguments that it is not have led to confusion as to whether or not non-provision or withdrawal of AHA constitutes a cause of death in law. Arguments that it is such a cause appear to be tenuously based on an extraordinary/ordinary categorisation of treatments by Kelly (3) which has subsequently been interpreted as prescriptive in a way quite inconsistent with the Catholic moral theological tradition from which the distinction is derived. The focus of ethical discourse on decisions at the end of life should be shifted to an analysis of care, needs, proportionality of medical interventions, and processes of communication. (shrink)