Why Is Hydration Important

I walk into a hospital and I try to assess all of the medical equipment. I come across an IV bag and a feeding tube; I begin to wonder if these items are as important as a breathing machine. I think to myself, well they all keep a person alive, and that answers my question. Today, I will be arguing the claim that withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration is not morally different from other types of life-sustaining treatments. I will cover what each procedure is, how each procedure is performed, and the risks/benefits of these procedures. With that information, I can assess how each of these treatments relates to other life sustaining treatments such as ventilated life support. The human body needs a sufficient amount of water and nutrition
to properly function. In cases where individuals are unable to get these substances on their own, medical interventions can help. Artificial nutrition refers to the medical intervention where a feeding tube (an NG tube) is inserted through an individual’s nose and travels down the throat to the stomach. This tube allows liquid nutrients to be given to an individual in place of food. The NG tube is only a temporary solution, usually about 1-4 weeks. If an individual needs this assistance for a longer period of time, a PEG tube (or g-tube) in inserted into the wall of the stomach where nutrients are directly pumped. Intravenous fluid replacement (IV fluids) is the medical intervention in which concentrated fluids are pumped through a tube that is attached to a needle that is inserted into an individual’s vein. This intervention is much more common and is used when individuals are unable to drink or keep liquids down. The importance of understanding the process of these procedures is to show that they are indeed medical interventions. There are many benefits and risks to these procedures. The main benefit is they allow the patient to steadily thrive when they are not able to do so on their own. Unfortunately they also pose the risk of infection, discomfort, and even death if not given in the proper amounts. These life sustaining medical interventions match up with other life sustaining medical interventions such as ventilated life support. Ventilated life support refers the medical intervention where a ventilator is used to keep an individual breathing when they are unable to do so themselves. A tube is inserted through an individual’s windpipe while the other part of the tube is connected to a machine that pushes oxygen to mimic breathing. Without this medical intervention, individuals die from lack of oxygen to support their organs. Taking all of this information into consideration, it is clear that these procedures are life saving medical interventions. I believe if Mr. Wheaton has a right to deny any life sustaining medical interventions on behalf of Ms. Conrad, and because so, for morality’s sake, that would have to include artificial nutrition and hydration. While they are not as invasive and are often used in non-critical situations, they are still life saving interventions. Without proper hydration and nutrients, you body will fall into a coma and eventually die. There is no room for me to argue otherwise because at the end of the day, they are medical interventions. It is one’s right to deny these interventions and those wishes are to be granted. One could argue that it would be inhumane to withdrawal artificial nutrition and hydration because it would be a slow and suffering process. That the person must not be thinking in their best interest because usually when one refuses medical interventions it’s because they are going to be presumed dead and resuscitated. It could also be argued that the individual is not in his or her right mined because no sane individual would be willing to suffer. While that may be true, there are plenty of ways to ease the patients suffering. At the end of the day, the patient has the right to refuse treatment regardless how simple the procedure may be. Sometimes it causes patients more suffering to be kept alive through medical interventions. If a patient is in a comatose state, they are unable to tell medical professional that they are in pain and suffering. Would it not be worse to keep them alive only for them to suffer? Even if they didn’t suffer, patients are entitled to have a final say in what happens to them. Even giving a patient aspirin after they expressed they wished to resist medical interventions is just as significant. By ignoring the patient’s wishes, you are taking that patient’s power away. It would be completely unethical to disregard the wish of a patient just because someone feels they know what is best for the patient because at the end up the day, patient autonomy is a right. Regardless of anyone’s personal or professional opinions, patient autonomy is the upmost important boundary in medicine.
The best way to protect this to make sure patients are completely informed and that the medical professionals are able to uphold their promise; to take care of and do what is in the best interest of their patient. In many cases taking the most precautions and using the best medical care is what is in the best interest for their patients, but that is only if this is what a patient wants. As long as a patient is mentally competent, it is no one’s place to tell them what they can or cannot do to their bodies. To say intravenous hydration and artificial nutrients are not on the same morality scale as other (more invasive and life altering) medical interventions is wrong. All of these medical interventions are just that, interventions. Any of the interventions previously stated could not be spontaneously replicated by nature and they just as life sustaining as other treatments. From a professional definition, they are different procedures, but from a moral standpoint, they are all the same. This is why I truly believe that if a patient refuses medical interventions, this would morally include artificial hydration and
nutrition.