{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Advance directives for oral feeding in dementia: a response to Shelton and Geppert.
{Author}: Menzel PT;
{Journal}: J Med Ethics
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Feb 26
{Factor}: 5.926
{DOI}: 10.1136/jme-2024-109909
{Abstract}: In a recent paper in JME, Shelton and Geppert use an approach by Menzel and Chandler-Cramer to sort out ethical dilemmas about the oral feeding of patients in advanced dementia, ultimately arguing that the usefulness of advance directives about such feeding is highly limited. They misunderstand central aspects of Menzel's and Chandler-Cramer's approach, and in making their larger claim that such directives are much less useful than typically presumed, they fail to account for five important elements in writing good directives for dementia and implementing them properly: (1) Directives should be paired with appointment of trusted agents. (2) Appointed agents' authority can be greatly weakened without advance directives to guide them. (3) Directives' implementation does not require clinically precise assessment of dementia's stage. (4) Palliative support is typically required for withholding of oral feeding to be compassionate. (5) The central purpose of stopping feeding is often not the avoidance of suffering but not prolonging unwanted life.