Discussion topic:
2014 Controversial Topic: Terminal Cancer - death with dignity versus natural death process
Brittany Maynard's story went viral regarding her choice to move to Oregon so she could choose death with dignity (or as some would say assisted suicide) after she was told she had less than 6 months to live from the Glioblastoma diagnosis. Read/view her story here:
http://www.thebrittanyfund.org/ (to access her video(s): http://www.thebrittanyfund.org/category/videos/)
A response to her story was generated that went somewhat viral as well. Kara Tippetts (terminal cancer patient as well) responded to Brittany through a blog by letting her know she did not have to choose that option. This individual is very spiritual in nature but feels Brittany was lied to about the suffering she would endure during her terminal illness. Read her blog post here:
http://www.aholyexperience.com/2014/10/dear-brittany-why-we-dont-have-to-be-so-afraid-of-dying-suffering-that-we-choose-suicide/
Obviously their diagnoses are much different and their suffering will be much different. They also both have different backgrounds (children, religion, age, etc.). More importantly, they both had choices.
Share your thoughts on this controversial topic. You don't have to voice your specific opinion necessarily if you don't feel comfortable. But think about what patients are considering during diagnoses, terminal disease processes, etc. It's something many of our patients experience every day. What ethical/legal issues must be taken into consideration? What legal issues are being challenged in these situations? Make sure you support your statements with what you have learned in the course lecture material.
Be sure to follow the posting guidelines with regard to minimum word count, AMA, and citations.
Discussion post
The contrasting blogs of two cancer patients facing end of life shows that personal belief and philosophy can differ greatly from person to person. Both patients faced similar situations but handled it very differently. As such end of life decisions are just that, a personal decision. One patient felt empowered by taking control of when she will die and the other patient felt empowered by leaving a legacy and message to her loved ones through suffering. The main difference between the two patients is that Mrs. Maynard seeks to help others who wish to take control of their end of life decisions. She does not desire to take anything away from anyone other than herself. On the other hand, Mrs. Tippetts wishes to impose her philosophy on others and limit their ability to act freely. She should be free to state her position and share how she feels but her personal beliefs are not sufficient reason to limit the will of others with differing beliefs. In this situation, it is fortunate that the constitution of the United States allows differing states to decide what is best based on the will of the people exacted through the legal system.
In a paper on bioethics Beauchamp TL^1 makes some interesting points to better frame the contentious topic of physician assisted suicide. First, Beauchamp explains that the term killing is not necessarily a wrongful act or crime. In cases of self-defense and capital punishment no crime is committed. Although killing is usually a crime it is not always a morally unjustifiable act. differentiates assisted suicide from what he calls “letting-die.” In his definition of letting-die he explains that it is the process of removing a feeding tube or medical technology keeping a patient alive through the patient’s own decision through advance directive. In these cases, the often brain dead patient is not suffering from a loss of quality of life. Letting-die is legal in all states, however if the physician stopped life-saving technology without the patient’s request the act would be considered the same as killing. Beauchamp’s point is that everything is not black and white, many people would agree that killing is bad but letting-die is often found to be acceptable and even benevolent. In the case of giving life ending drugs Beauchamp explains that the act is no different than the act of letting-die. The physician honors a patient’s request, the patient facing a bleak situation and is not suffering from a loss of quality of life. In the case of letting-die the patient not die from his or her disease but from a lack of nutrients or life support, the physician doesn’t kill the patient but his actions lead to the patient’s death. According to Beauchamp physician assisted suicide is no different. The patient does not directly die from his or her affliction, the physician does not directly kill the patient but by writing a prescription the physician’s actions lead to the patient’s death. I found Beauchamp’s lecture to be enlightening by framing the topic of death, and dying via letting-die and assisted suicide.^1,2
References
1. Beauchamp TL. The medical ethics of physician-assisted suicide. J Med Ethics. 1999;25”437-439. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC479288/
2. Lenards N. Patient Legal Resources. [SoftChalk]. La Crosse, UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program. 2016.
2014 Controversial Topic: Terminal Cancer - death with dignity versus natural death process
Brittany Maynard's story went viral regarding her choice to move to Oregon so she could choose death with dignity (or as some would say assisted suicide) after she was told she had less than 6 months to live from the Glioblastoma diagnosis. Read/view her story here:
http://www.thebrittanyfund.org/ (to access her video(s): http://www.thebrittanyfund.org/category/videos/)
A response to her story was generated that went somewhat viral as well. Kara Tippetts (terminal cancer patient as well) responded to Brittany through a blog by letting her know she did not have to choose that option. This individual is very spiritual in nature but feels Brittany was lied to about the suffering she would endure during her terminal illness. Read her blog post here:
http://www.aholyexperience.com/2014/10/dear-brittany-why-we-dont-have-to-be-so-afraid-of-dying-suffering-that-we-choose-suicide/
Obviously their diagnoses are much different and their suffering will be much different. They also both have different backgrounds (children, religion, age, etc.). More importantly, they both had choices.
Share your thoughts on this controversial topic. You don't have to voice your specific opinion necessarily if you don't feel comfortable. But think about what patients are considering during diagnoses, terminal disease processes, etc. It's something many of our patients experience every day. What ethical/legal issues must be taken into consideration? What legal issues are being challenged in these situations? Make sure you support your statements with what you have learned in the course lecture material.
Be sure to follow the posting guidelines with regard to minimum word count, AMA, and citations.
Discussion post
The contrasting blogs of two cancer patients facing end of life shows that personal belief and philosophy can differ greatly from person to person. Both patients faced similar situations but handled it very differently. As such end of life decisions are just that, a personal decision. One patient felt empowered by taking control of when she will die and the other patient felt empowered by leaving a legacy and message to her loved ones through suffering. The main difference between the two patients is that Mrs. Maynard seeks to help others who wish to take control of their end of life decisions. She does not desire to take anything away from anyone other than herself. On the other hand, Mrs. Tippetts wishes to impose her philosophy on others and limit their ability to act freely. She should be free to state her position and share how she feels but her personal beliefs are not sufficient reason to limit the will of others with differing beliefs. In this situation, it is fortunate that the constitution of the United States allows differing states to decide what is best based on the will of the people exacted through the legal system.
In a paper on bioethics Beauchamp TL^1 makes some interesting points to better frame the contentious topic of physician assisted suicide. First, Beauchamp explains that the term killing is not necessarily a wrongful act or crime. In cases of self-defense and capital punishment no crime is committed. Although killing is usually a crime it is not always a morally unjustifiable act. differentiates assisted suicide from what he calls “letting-die.” In his definition of letting-die he explains that it is the process of removing a feeding tube or medical technology keeping a patient alive through the patient’s own decision through advance directive. In these cases, the often brain dead patient is not suffering from a loss of quality of life. Letting-die is legal in all states, however if the physician stopped life-saving technology without the patient’s request the act would be considered the same as killing. Beauchamp’s point is that everything is not black and white, many people would agree that killing is bad but letting-die is often found to be acceptable and even benevolent. In the case of giving life ending drugs Beauchamp explains that the act is no different than the act of letting-die. The physician honors a patient’s request, the patient facing a bleak situation and is not suffering from a loss of quality of life. In the case of letting-die the patient not die from his or her disease but from a lack of nutrients or life support, the physician doesn’t kill the patient but his actions lead to the patient’s death. According to Beauchamp physician assisted suicide is no different. The patient does not directly die from his or her affliction, the physician does not directly kill the patient but by writing a prescription the physician’s actions lead to the patient’s death. I found Beauchamp’s lecture to be enlightening by framing the topic of death, and dying via letting-die and assisted suicide.^1,2
References
1. Beauchamp TL. The medical ethics of physician-assisted suicide. J Med Ethics. 1999;25”437-439. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC479288/
2. Lenards N. Patient Legal Resources. [SoftChalk]. La Crosse, UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program. 2016.