Imagine having to make the decision to take a loved one off a ventilator or removing a tube feeding. What would they want? Would they want to live in a nursing home, connected to “tubes,” possibly without a means to communicate or care for themselves? How would they define “Quality of Life”? Have you ever discussed with them what their wishes are if they are unable to speak for themselves? Have they discussed it with family or friends? Did they write their wished down anywhere? Would it make the decision easier if you knew you’re loved one’s wishes? Can you feel the stress, anxiety and dread overcoming you? Unfortunately this scenario occurs every day. Pharmacological and medical technology advances have prolonged life through the development of life sustaining therapies such as antibiotics, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), mechanical ventilation, feeding tubes and hemodialysis (HD). While prolonging life, it has also raised the question of quality of life and thus the need for end of life planning by individuals. Unfortunately, laws have been unable to keep pace with medical advances. There have been several well publicized cases involving end of life care for persons in a persistent vegetative state and the request for withdrawal of life sustaining therapies (e.g. Karen Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan) that have brought this topic to the fore front of public attention and resulted in legal precedence concerning an individual’s wishes for end of life
We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved. We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive? For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power. At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing. Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their
Autonomy can override beneficence when life-support is withdrawn (Prozgar, 2010). In addition, when a physician takes the position of withdrawing life-supporting equipment, the principle of non-maleficence is severed. Since helping patients die violates the physician’s virtue of duty to save lives,” distributed justice is served by releasing a room in the intensive care unit for a patient who has a higher chance of resolving their medical problems (Pozgar, G. 2010). There are so many inflict fuzzy gray areas and ideas about conflicting DNR policies that political disputes had to go to the courts to sort out the issues legally.
Secondly, the patient should be capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him or herself. Thirdly, the patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. Interested patients must also provide the request for termination in writing to the physician. In addition, physicians are expected to inform patients to alternative means of care including hospice care and other medications. Only after precautions evaluation, the laws then permit patients to make the ultimate life ending decision.
.“As medical technology continues to advance and health care choices become more complicated, the preservation of end-of-life autonomy is an increasingly important issue faced by various client populations.” (Galambos, 1998).
A legal requirement of end of life care is that the wishes of the individual, including whether CPR should be attempted, as well as their wishes how they are cared for after death are
The topic of end-of-life care may seem daunting and uncomfortable, and yet most individuals do have unique desires and concerns regarding their provision for the future. Providing the opportunity for that communication, the advance directive and POLST forms allow an individual to explicitly state their wishes before the future. Developed to lessen the apprehensions concerning patients undergoing any extensive and unwanted measures to preserve life at any cost, these medical directives lighten the decision-making burden for physicians and families alike and help comply with the patient’s utmost end-of-life wishes.
The importance of end of life issues and decisions are now being discussed at the time of admission to most acute care and long term acute care facilities. More attention is being placed on these specific decisions to ensure that the patient's
If a patient can come to a decision when it is time to stop treatment for their terminal illness, then they should also be allowed to choose when to bring death. End of life care has become just as important of an issue to physicians as well as the patients. If physician-assisted deaths were permitted in all 50 states, physicians could openly discuss end of life wishes with their patients. The term “Terminally ill”, Is a terminal condition that is a disease or process that will result eventually in a patient's death, no matter what treatment is given. Of course, this could
A woman is thrashing in bed and crying from the pain her illness is causing her to feel. Her family rushes to find a nurse nearby to administer pain relieving medication. A nurse comes by to give palliative care to the woman that’s in agony. However, the strongest medication that’s at hand cannot relieve the pain without overdosing the patient. The terminally ill patient now has to live with intractable pain for the remaining days of her life. Physician Assisted Death is sometimes necessary in case state-of-the-art palliative care no longer works on the cancer patient. Terminal patients should have the option to control the circumstances surrounding their inevitable deaths with Physician Assisted Death to treat the pain.
This film explains the legal role of advance directives in end of life issues. An advance directive is “a written document directing how medical decisions are to be made in the future when the patient lacks decisional capacity and is unable to decide and choose” (Hanlon, End of Life Issues, Slide 28, Bullet 1). All three of the cases demonstrate the importance in filling out some form of directive. When there is nothing to go off of, it makes decisions extremely tough for families and medical providers. Having legal documentation of patient wishes helps understand what treatments they would or would not consent to. In cases like
Many times honoring an individual's wishes to initiate DNR are challenging for medical professionals, infringing on professional objective to save lives. Although this choice may prove a difficult one, patients have the right to make personal choices concerning health care decisions,
With an increasing aging population and growing numbers of individuals with chronic conditions, it is important for individuals to prepare for end-of-life care. An Advance Directive is a defined as a “legal document that provides data to critical care staff about patients’ wishes, especially when critical illness decreases decision-making ability” (McAdam, Stotts, Padilla, and Puntillo, 2005). An Advance Directive also allows for better communication between the patient and doctor, and preserves the autonomy of patients. It may also alleviate one’s family from any possible burden of uncertainty of one’s wishes. It provides guidance, which may avert arguments with family members concerning treatment choices (Cedars Sinai, 2015). The Patient
With major advancement in medical treatments, it is now possible to keep a patient alive, which would not have been possible in former times. This has made end of life issue one of the most controversial issues in healthcare. Medical improvements have set the stage for ethical and legal controversies about not only the patient’s rights but also the family’s rights and the medical profession’s proper role. It is critical that any decision made in such situation is ethical and legal to preserve the rights of the patient and also protect the healthcare institution involved. It is very important when making decisions to discontinue treatments to make sure all other alternatives have been explored.
Most adults diagnosed with cancer undergo years of treatment in attempts to cure that cancer. However, sometimes these treatments may not work, or the cancer is found too late in a patient to be stopped, and a patient’s cancer can be determined terminal, which means that the cancer can not be cured and will lead to death. If cancer is determined terminal, end-of-life care can be administered patients to control lasting pains, including shortness of breath, nausea, and constipation. However, this treatment does not cure the cancer, and will not prevent death in a terminally ill cancer patient. In some cases, patients decide that receiving end-of-life treatment is not worth it if the treatment does not prevent death. Terminally ill cancer patients may also continue to experience unbearable suffering, despite end-of-life treatments, as it is not always effective. These factors may push some terminally ill cancer patients to request to be actively euthanized. Active euthanasia is the merciful ending of a patient’s life through a single act, such as an injection. Terminally ill cancer patients should have the right to determine if they are actively euthanized. However, only patients who consider their suffering unbearable should have the right to be euthanized.
The diseases which were once thought to be incurable do find treatments or cure in due course of time with the progress of human research expertise. With the progress of science and technology new and improved drugs are found thus change in nature as well as human development appears as the course of life. In keeping with this, the Hathi Committee has held that a fixed or any constant number of inventions or research formulations are not sufficient to meet all the needs of time and nature.