Withdrawal of Artificial Nutrition at the End of Life (PERCEPAL)

The benefit of artificial nutrition in terminally ill patients has been a highly debated issue for the past 30 years, and abundant data are available regarding its effects on patients. Several clinical guidelines have specified the criteria to be considered before initiating artificial nutrition or hydration. If these guidelines appear consensual in theory, the situation is much less straightforward in practice. The attitude of physicians appeared very variable when it came to prescribing or withholding artificial nutrition or hydration, and the lack of training, among other parameters, seemingly encouraged health care professionals to prescribe artificial nutrition or hydration. Furthermore, the decision of the care provider is unconsciously complicated due to figurative representations associated with food regarding, among other aspects, the mother-child relationship, social cohesion, or religious beliefs.

These differences are more important since the opinion of physicians and nurses is the one that carries the most influence on the patients' decision when deciding to initiate artificial nutrition and because artificial nutrition and hydration are a common source of ethical dilemmas in health care teams. Furthermore, stopping artificial nutrition or hydration could be misconstrued as euthanasia.

Inclusion criteria

• nurses, and nurses' aides working in medicine, surgery, and palliative care departments of the regional hospital of Metz-Thionville

Exclusion criteria

• Care providers working in pediatrics, gynecology and obstetrics, psychiatry, and emergency departments