Withholding or Withdrawing Treatment
The issue of withholding or withdrawing treatment first arose during the case of Tony Bland a victim of the Hillsborough disaster, said to be living in a ‘persistent vegetative state’, better described as a ‘persistent non-responsive state’. In the case of Tony Bland the court ruled that his feeding-tube could be withdrawn and he could be starved and dehydrated to death.
By ruling in favour of the withdrawal of the feeding-tube, the court defined food and fluids administered in this way as medical treatment and therefore that Tony Bland was being kept alive by artificial means. Neither food nor fluids can properly be defined as medical treatment; instead they are our basic needs in order to stay alive. To describe tube feeding as medical treatment and an artificial means of keeping someone alive is also misplaced. Tony Bland could not feed himself, however he was capable of digesting his food on his own, he was therefore not receiving nutrition by artificial means. We would not withdraw a feeding-tube from a patient with throat cancer, saying that it is artificially keeping them alive, simply because he/she cannot feed themselves in the usual way.
Treatment can only be withdrawn if receiving it is a greater burden to the patient than the benefit derived from it. This cannot be said of tube feeding. The benefit of receiving food and fluids is that of receiving the nutrition we need to stay alive. This benefit is rarely outweighed by the small or non-existent burden on the patient of tube feeding. Food and fluids only become of no benefit to a patient if they can no longer be digested and thus provide nutrition.
Withdrawing or withholding food and fluids or any other treatment from a patient on any basis other than those stipulated above, is based on the subjective premise that the person’s life is no longer worth living and that they would be better off dead.
http://www.spucscotland.org/education/endoflife/withholdingwithdrawingtreatment.html