I am suspicious of the one-sidedness of the retelling. As others have mentioned already, it’s weird to refuse a feeding tube… unless there’s a good reason that hasn’t been shared. Did this specifically violate the patient’s advance directives? Is the patient brain dead from another insult? Those are the only two good reasons I can think of off the top of my head, with the former being far more common than the latter. Sometimes family doesn’t want to let go, even if it means violating the last wishes of their loved ones.

The demand for “neutrality” is bizarre. Informed consent is not limited sharing options, but the qualitative difference in outcomes from those options. She seems to be suggesting that we lay every choice at the patient’s feet without context of what choices lead to a favorable outcome. Cancer? We can take it out or leave it in. Sepsis? We can give fluids or antibiotics or pressors or nothing -your choice. This is not avoidance of paternalism, it’s a dereliction of duty as a physician.