{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0266798418972332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001976284584980237, 'mean_word_length': 5.13939393939394, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
"No feeding tubes for me!


 A 65-year-old competent nursing home patient, suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and respirator dependent, refuses a nasogastric feeding tube even though she realizes that her refusal will result in death. The nursing staff and the patient's husband support her decision but two of her three children want her life prolonged. Nicholson, Qiu, and Koch and Ulshoefer discuss whether the refusal would be honored in Britain, China, and West Germany respectively. In Britain, this patient would receive palliative care, and both the respirator and the nasogastric tube would be considered extraordinary and not offered. In China, medical technologies are scarce, physicians are divided on treatment refusal, and the family's attitudes would be influenced by the Confucian tradition of filial piety and whether or not the patient was eligible for free care. In West Germany, this case would be legally considered "passive euthanasia" and the patient's refusal would be honored.
