Article info
PDFClinical ethics
Nurses’ attitudes towards artificial food or fluid administration in patients with dementia and in terminally ill patients: a review of the literature
- E Bryon, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35/3, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium; els.bryon{at}med.kuleuven.be
Citation
Nurses’ attitudes towards artificial food or fluid administration in patients with dementia and in terminally ill patients: a review of the literature
Publication history
- Received May 9, 2007
- Accepted June 24, 2007
- First published May 29, 2008.
Online issue publication
October 18, 2016
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
2008 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the Institute of Medical Ethics
Other content recommended for you
- Artificial nutrition and hydration in the patient with advanced dementia: is withholding treatment compatible with traditional Judaism?
- Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of a family booklet on comfort care in dementia: sensitive topics revised before implementation
- Artificial nutrition and hydration for children and young people towards end of life: consensus guidelines across four specialist paediatric palliative care centres
- Precedent autonomy should be respected in life-sustaining treatment decisions
- Patient challenges GMC guidance on withdrawing treatment
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
- Demise of the LCP: villain or scapegoat?
- Withholding artificial feeding from the severely demented: merciful or immoral? Contrasts between secular and Jewish perspectives
- Withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: parental perspectives
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic