Your activity: 2 p.v.

The hydration debate

The hydration debate
Arguments for hydration
Provides a basic human need
Provides comfort and prevents uncomfortable symptoms: confusion, agitation, and neuromuscular irritability
Prevents complications (eg, neurotoxicity with high-dose narcotics)
Relieves thirst, recognized as a sign of fluid needs
Does not "artificially" prolong life to any meaningful degree
Allows providers to continue their efforts to find ways to improve comfort and life quality, despite the perception of a poor quality of life
Provides minimum standards of care; not doing so would break a bond with the patient
Denying hydration may set a precedent to withhold therapies from other patients who are compromised
Arguments against hydration
Interferes with acceptance of the terminal condition
Intravenous therapy is painful and intrusive
Prolongs suffering and the dying process
Unnecessary since unconscious patients do not experience uncomfortable symptoms, such as pain or thirst
Less urine output means less need for bed pan, urinal, commode, or catheter
Less fluid in the gastrointestinal tract and less vomiting
Less pulmonary secretions and less cough, choking, and congestion
Minimizes edema and ascites
Ketones and other metabolic by-products in dehydration act as natural anesthetics for the central nervous system, causing decreased levels of consciousness and decreased suffering
Reproduced from: Bruera E, Dalal S. Dehydration in cancer patients: To treat or not to treat. J Support Oncol 2004; 2:467. Illustration used with the permission of Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Graphic 50789 Version 3.0