ABSTRACT
Of the various treatments to sustain life, tube feeding has been at the heart of debates throughout the decades, particularly in situations when death is not yet imminent. From the legal point of view, it has been agreed in both the American and Hong Kong communities that, šrst, a patient who is mentally competent can refuse treatment after having been properly informed of the treatment’s nature and its benešts, risks, possible alternatives and consequences. Second, there is no moral difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. The ethical issue that remains unresolved is whether tube feeding in some situations should be considered as medically futile. On one hand, it can successfully deliver sufšcient nutrition and hydration to support the patient’s life. On the other, it fails to improve the underlying incapacitating condition. This different line of thinking leads to divergent conclusions in which tube feeding is either regarded as an extraordinary medical treatment which could be forgone or as basic sustenance care which should always been in place. The plights of patients in several precedents in the United States have exemplišed the dilemma.
