Physiotherapy raises serious bioethical questions that are far too little discussed. Concerns include the lack of a clearly defined end point, the closeness of interaction between therapist and patient, the patient’s own share of responsibility, and the common failure to refer patients for rehabilitation.Physiotherapy has evolved dramatically in recent years, to the point where it is now a major healthcare profession offering assessment, diagnosis and treatment for a wide range of conditions, from sports injuries to rehabilitation for major injuries and (...) diseases. According to the World Confederation for Physical Therapy, “Physical Therapy is providing services to people and populations to develop maintain and restore maximum movement and functional ability throughout the lifespan” .1However, almost uniquely among the healthcare professions, physiotherapy has aroused little or no philosophical interest or engagement. This is surprising, because some of the salient features of physiotherapy raise interesting and to some extent novel problems in ethics. There are, it is true, some papers on ethically related themes,2–5 but in comparison with the size of the discipline and the complexity of the problems, the profile of physiotherapy in bioethics is worryingly low.A first problem is that unlike many areas of medicine—surgery, for example, or radiography or obstetrics and gynaecology—physiotherapy has no obvious end point. In medicine, the end points of treatment are generally well defined, with only a few exceptions, such as plastic surgery or psychiatry. It is my impression that physiotherapy, with few exceptions, does not operate with the concept of end points. Although what physiotherapy aims at is clear, the point at which the aims are achieved is uncertain. For example, in many cases the patient would go on benefiting from sessions of physiotherapy, perhaps with diminishing returns but still with …. (shrink)

The implications of Pope John Paul II's 2004 Allocution on vegetative states remain unclear despite dozens of articles and a recent clarifying statement from the Vatican. Yet few have considered its implications for those with end-stage progressive dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease. Although recent studies suggest tube feeding is burdensome and not beneficial for such patients, the Allocution would nonetheless seem to forbid patients from forgoing it. But this seems to be in tension with the Catholic bioethical tradition as a (...) whole and may therefore be a consequence that the pope did not intend. Because the recent Vatican clarification specifically addresses Alzheimer’s, it is especially important to know what duties it intends to impose on those with dementia. Problems with how it would apply to such patients casts doubt on whether it should be applied to patients in vegetative states at all. (shrink)

In this article, we examine the emergence of a concept of medical feeding that emphasizes artificiality and medical technology. We discuss how this concept has been created in specific contrast to the daily provision of food and water; medical definitions retain clear disjunctures with cultural and religious beliefs surrounding food, gendered aspects of eating and feeding, and the everyday practices of social and family life in the United States. We begin with an examination of the historical processes involved in creating (...) artificial nutrition and hydration as a medical concept, including the evolution of terminology and practices in relation to technology advancement, legal cases, and public discourse. We.. (shrink)