Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie93
Yes, there are many, many occasions when the best course of treatment is to let a patient go comfortably. However, there are already procedures in place for that- hospice care.
What many aren't aware of is that often the physician recognizes when artificial life-extending measures are futile and they DO recommend hospice care. It is often the families, who for a whole gamut of reasons (denial, guilt, hope, faith, etc), are unwilling to let the loved one go peacefully and request "full code" status. (this would be the case when loved one is unable to make own medical decisions and next of kin is required)
However, hospice care and families unwilling to let grandmama go peacefully is a whole 'nother topic and not what Dr Phil is asking about. Therefore, I won't dereail. Just wanted to clarify that artificial measures to extend life in a futile situation are done at patient and family request, not because a physician just wants to. There is also not a need for physician assisted suicide to allow a patient to die comfortably. Hospice is an excellent alternative.
#marriedtoanoncologist #heartragicfamilystoriesdaily
|
Exactly. This is a far different discussion than life extending procedures for the elderly patients that family members just won't let die. SOME physicians may do these procedures in a misguided attempt to make more money, but for the most part, the problem lies with a lack of education (remember the while death panel debate when the Obama administration dared to suggest that physicians get paid for discussing end of life issues with patients) or guilt that prevents patients and their families from agreeing to stop. Futile care is NOT something that physicians enjoy forcing on patients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
I'm for it, not just in terminal illness cases but in severe disability which precludes any quality of life such as quadraplegia at the C1 or C2 level, severe stroke impairment that will not improve, etc. It isn't really possible for all patients to do it by themselves because some are physically unable to obtain the means.
I'm also pro-hospice, but have seen people suffer up until the very last minute, even while hospice was trying to keep them comfortable. If pain is so great that no pain meds can touch it and a patient is terminal and conscious, it's a pretty awful situation.
I also think "do no harm" can be interpreted a lot of ways. I also struggle with the religious arguments against it. The argument I usually hear is that it is "playing God" and such things should be left up to God. But I never hear that argument go in the other direction. Most (not all) are ok with taking all kinds of medical extreme measures to prolong a life. Isn't this playing God too? Where do we draw that line? People used to die from all kinds of infections that we now treat easily with penicillin. People died of heart problems that are much more easily treated now. If our time and manner of death is all predetermined, then why treat anything? For these reasons, I don't buy into that argument. I just can't understand where the line is. It's one of my first questions for Him when I die. (I have a whole list of these types of questions)
These are all reasons why it is important for people to have patient advocates and Living Wills, if they feel strongly about not being in certain circumstances.
|
The problem with some of these impairments is that these people can't be judged as able to make their own decisions. How can you "assists" them to commit suicide when they are not competent? That isn't suicide or assisted suicide. That is murder, and that is definitely asking too much of a physician. Unfortunately, there is some suffering in this world. I do believe we CAN do better in controlling pain. Treating the pain adequately may hasten death, so be it. I believe in withholding life extending measures, ie. feeding tubes, vents, when those measures will not provide a quality life for the patient or they have no chance of recovery. I do not believe in specifically causing a patient's death, and I thing the vast majority of physicians see it that way.
Your entire second paragraph is nonsensical.