RESUMO
In the majority of cases, severe stroke is accompanied by difficulty in swallowing and an altered state of consciousness requiring artificial nutrition and hydration. Because of their artificial nature, nutrition and hydration are considered by law as treatment rather basic care. Withdrawal of these treatments is dictated by the refusal of unreasonable obstinacy enshrined in law and is justified by the risk of severe disability and very poor quality of life. It is usually the last among other withholding and withdrawal decisions which have already been made during the long course of the disease. Reaching a collegial consensus on a controversial decision such as artificial nutrition and hydration withdrawal is a difficult and complex process. The reluctance for such decisions is mainly due to the symbolic value of food and hydration, to the fear of "dying badly" while suffering from hunger and thirst, and to the difficult distinction between this medical act and euthanasia. The only way to overcome such reluctance is to ensure flawless accompaniment, associating sedation and appropriate comfort care with a clear explanation (with relatives but also caregivers) of the rationale and implications of this type of decision. All teams dealing with this type of situation must have thoroughly thought through the medical, legal and ethical considerations involved in making this difficult decision.
