Posted on 08/12/2008 8:05:23 AM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
Exactly, the "conventional wisdom" these days seems to be that doctors should 'err on the side of death" and to this end they have adopted the attitude that if someone's life doesn't meet their arbitrary standards of "quality" that it isn't really life (or at least not "life worth living").
Okay?
11 posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:23:52 AM by VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
*********************
Okay!
>>People certainly are quick to snuff out a viable life. And then defend it.
>Very true.
Very false. Decisions in families to do this are often prefaced by years of discussion and soul-searching.
ping for your comment, please
The “living will”. What irony.
Understood. But how do you think the family feels when the hospital chooses to "meddle" in a way that kills a person they wanted kept alive?
For the sake of our loved ones, we need to be VERY clear in our instructions about health and resuscitation.
I’m definitely in the minority here but I just watched my Mother die from ALS aka Lou Gehrigs Disease. She was well aware that it would kill her very slowly. She signed a living will while she still could stating that she did not want a ventilator or a feeding tube to keep her going.
I also know another person that was on a ventilator and feeding tube and totally bedridden for 8 years. His family suffered emotionally, financially, spiritually, you name it.
Which decision was the best?
Which is then ignored by hospitals and courts.
My father, who passed in early June this year, sounds a lot like your grandmother. He hated docs and hospitals, so to his very good fortune, when he had the heart attack, he was dead before he hit the floor. We were lucky to not have to address this issue, though we would have, had he survived, given the existence of his advance directive.
We are all commenting on this story, for which we have only the barest minimum of actual facts, based on how we are filling in the gaps of our knowledge with our own biases and prejudices. It’s normal to do things that way.
Here is what I know: I do not want ANYONE outside of my family meddling in my family affairs, especially when it comes to end of life decisions. It is not anyone’s concern except ours, and we will deal with it as we see fit, in light of what we know about our family.
What’s next for the meddlers in end of life decisions? Getting involved in our start of life decisions? Who when and how many babies to have? Of course that’s not your business, and neither is the end of life decision!!!!!
A terminal disease changes the parameters. The man in the story had congestive heart failure, was alert and had made his wife his named surrogate. The court removed her as surrogate and killed him. Different situation from yours.
People get the courts involved when they sign LEGAL Living Wills. It then becomes a LEGAL decision.
OK, I’ll buy that. But this story is advocating everyone do away with living wills. I can’t go along with that.
And they are almost exclusively modeled after boilerplate "living wills" that use broadly defined terms to end life.
Explain how it is that "years of discussion" can possibly predict the ACTUAL scenario -- because they can't. Explain how "years of soul-searching" can predict how you will ACTUALLY feel if you become disabled in a catastrophic accident -- because it can't.
Don't get me wrong, I AM NOT disputing the importance of living wills, advance medical directives and medical powers of attorney. What I am saying is that in most cases, people opt for the boilerplate versions that are distributed by hospitals and used by lawyers who really don't know what they are doing.
There are alternatives to Living Wills that are much better. That’s the main thrust of the article.
Mr. Pinette wanted to die, and he did. The government doesn’t own a patient’s life, and neither does a patient’s spouse (who in this case was legally named as a surrogate to make medical decisions for him IF he could not communicate himself). Even if he had been unable to communicate, a named surrogate does not have the right to direct treatments in clear contravention of the patient’s own wishes as expressed in a living will. The outcome was exactly what Mr. Pinette wanted — that in the event of the sudden emergence of situation where he would die unless he had medical interventions that he DID NOT WANT, he would not be subjected to the unwanted interventions and would die. Many people are well aware that in a situation like this, emotionally panicked relatives may have trouble letting go, even if they intellectually know that the patient wants to be allowed to die. A living will is an effective way to deal with this problem.
a death sentence IF YOU SIGN A FORM WILL WITHOUT FILLING IT OUT.
A living will can state “keep me alive” or “take ALL measures without exception.”
It is a MYTH that living wills always state “kill me.”
A surrogate does not have the right to make medical decisions that oppose those of an alert and communicative patient, nor to make medical decisions in contravention of the patient’s written advance directive. It appears that the court in this case didn’t even need to “remove” the surrogate, but just confirm to the hospital that the surrogate had no authority to override this patient’s wishes, as expressed BOTH by the alert and communicating patient at the time AND by the patient’s advance directive.
The main thrust of the article is the fact the author has no clue about the law of living wills or advance directives.
Right concept and incompetent reporting.
The man in the story had congestive heart failure, was alert
Only alert according to his wife from another report
Kirkwood noted in his order that Alice Pinette did not offer independent evidence to challenge the doctors' conclusions. "Her credibility is questioned considering the medical evidence," Kirkwood stated. "She presented no independent verification of her perceptions of his abilities."Alice Pinette, also 73, left Kirkwood's courtroom in tears and did not comment on the ruling. Her attorney William Ruffier said he is not sure there is an issue to appeal and doesn't think there are others who could confirm her observations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.