One of the more recent health ethical dilemmas in Colorado comes along with the End of Life Options Act,
passed in November 2016. According to this act, physician-assisted death was legalized in the state of
Colorado, modeling the system after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, which was passed earlier.
The enactment of this system raises many ethical questions about patient autonomy and the
obligations of the physician.
passed in November 2016. According to this act, physician-assisted death was legalized in the state of
Colorado, modeling the system after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, which was passed earlier.
The enactment of this system raises many ethical questions about patient autonomy and the
obligations of the physician.
Are there benefits to patients?
There are seemingly two main stances on the answer to this question. Those opposing the
legalization of physician-assisted death suggests that with our current knowledge and
understanding, we can not determine if death provides the patient with any sort of benefit.
Thus, we cannot consider death as a treatment option. On the flip side, proponents for this cause
suggests that patients with chronic and incurable diseases might benefit from physician-assisted
suicide because it can help eliminate their suffering, preserving the quality of life.
legalization of physician-assisted death suggests that with our current knowledge and
understanding, we can not determine if death provides the patient with any sort of benefit.
Thus, we cannot consider death as a treatment option. On the flip side, proponents for this cause
suggests that patients with chronic and incurable diseases might benefit from physician-assisted
suicide because it can help eliminate their suffering, preserving the quality of life.
What are the moral obligations of physicians?
Healthcare providers seem to be polarized in their opinion on a physician’s moral obligation and
responsibilities regarding this matter. Some, suggests that playing a part in taking the life of
another individual goes against their oath. Others suggest that the main obligation of a physician
is to do no harm and to reduce harm to the patient. In that way, the physician-assisted death
program gives patients and physicians a tool for harm reduction, and thus, morally acceptable.
responsibilities regarding this matter. Some, suggests that playing a part in taking the life of
another individual goes against their oath. Others suggest that the main obligation of a physician
is to do no harm and to reduce harm to the patient. In that way, the physician-assisted death
program gives patients and physicians a tool for harm reduction, and thus, morally acceptable.
What are some of the social and cultural components of this program?
This topic definitely garners opinions not only based on cultural views, but there are also some
economic factors that may play in. Chronic long-term care presents a huge burden not only the
patient but also their families and their caretakers. The notion of physician-assisted death might
carry economic weight, which makes those who maybe reside in a lower socioeconomic group
more susceptible.
economic factors that may play in. Chronic long-term care presents a huge burden not only the
patient but also their families and their caretakers. The notion of physician-assisted death might
carry economic weight, which makes those who maybe reside in a lower socioeconomic group
more susceptible.
What are your opinions on the physician-assisted death program?
Source: Goligher, E. C., Ely, E. W., Sulmasy, D. P., Bakker, J., Raphael, J., Volandes, A. E.,
. . . Downar, J. (2017). Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the ICU. Critical Care
Medicine, 45(2), 149-155. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001818
. . . Downar, J. (2017). Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the ICU. Critical Care
Medicine, 45(2), 149-155. doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000001818
I'm in favor of having the legal ability to undergo PAS. I think it certainly does grant individuals the ability to 'go out on their own terms' in a manner that minimizes suffering in the face of imminent death and allows the individual, as you said, to protect their family financially. Of course, that being said, I think there are a few worrisome things about PAS, but they can be addressed with adequate levels of caution. For one, it seems imperative that an individual seeking PAS is as autonomous as possible. Since several psychological studies have suggested that pain and fear can actually render individuals non-autonomous, physicians might be walking a fairly fine line. I think it actually was Oregon that instated a protocol that require individuals seeking PAS to request the service two or three times over the span of what I'm remembering as 1 month. Essentially, if they can consistently seek it, they can have access to it.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue I see was also alluded to when you discussed the hippocratic oath. I think it's always important to look at the end result when a physician is deciding what action is appropriate. If we interpret the hippocratic oath literally, then why are we allowed to cut into a patient to begin surgery or provide them with a medication that can normally be considered toxic? To me, it is because the end result either removes something bad or creates something good. In the case of PAS, the removal of Pain can merit the action if and only if the end result either way is death. This requires the patient's disease to be terminal beyond a reasonable doubt.