Posted on 08/17/2006 7:46:55 AM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
From the Editor: This is the second in a series of columns first posted on the Illinois Right to Life Committee's (IRLC) website [http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/] written by Bill Beckman, IRLC's executive director. The RFFM.org re-posting of the column discusses how living wills can cancel out the wishes of patients and loved ones regarding end of life issues. Also, readers can learn how to seek out alternatives to living wills and find ways to ensure their end of life issues are respected and adhered to. Included are examples of how living wills have been used to disregard patients rights.
The following was written by Bill Beckman, Executive Director, Illinois Right to Life Committee:
We knew the push for living wills based on the Terri Schiavo case would be dangerous to people who took the bait. Recently, some cases are coming to light that confirm our fears about the dangers of such documents. A living will has nothing to do with living, but everything to do with dying. A living will is claimed to be a mechanism for preventing unwanted medical treatment, including so-called heroic medical measures or resuscitation in the event of a healthcare catastrophe. No one wants to consider their perspective might change after they experience a healthcare catastrophe. The will to live is strong, regardless of what someone else perceives our quality of life to be. The organization Not Dead Yet understands this fact. They are fighting to maintain respect for the rights of disabled people and recognize the threat to these rights from a “quality of life” mindset that decides to deny medical services based on the futile care theory [see: http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newsline.htm#2006050201]
An example of a case out of Florida should establish the serious risk that living wills and futile care theory have on disabled patients. Late in 2004, Hanford Pinette was admitted through emergency to a hospital in Orlando, Florida after suffering congestive heart failure. He was placed on a ventilator and a dialysis machine. Doctors informed his wife Alice that his condition was “not likely to improve”. Then, she was informed the doctors intended to “follow his living will” and remove the provisions of ventilation and dialysis. Mrs. Pinette objected because her husband 'Hank' was alert and oriented, there was no prognosis tendered that could determine his death was eminent, he spoke (sporadically, but he managed) and he responded physically to her directions and touch. He was fighting for his life. By Mrs. Pinette's accounts, Hanford Pinette simply wasn’t ready to die.
The hospital actually petitioned the circuit courts for the authority to remove Hanford Pinette’s provisions of ventilation and dialysis, over the objections of his named surrogate (his wife Alice) and as a means of “enforcing his living will”. They won, and those medically necessary treatments were taken away from him. After two hours of struggling for air, Hanford Pinette – a nondying, cognizant and alert man - succumbed and was pronounced dead. The hospital’s deadly application of his living will overcame even Hank’s stated intention to have his own wife make his medical decisions.
Supporters of the living will claim that modern technology has allowed the artificial extension of life--in violation of human dignity. Is the artificial extension of life through modern technology really the issue? Then why is it that the issue is almost always feeding tubes and ventilators? Why are organ transplants and cancer treatments never the focus of these debates? Judgments are made about when it is appropriate to use modern technology, such as organ transplants--apparently with very limited controversy. Removal of feeding tubes and ventilators is the agenda of the “right to die” movement. Their claims of oppressive technology do not stand up to scrutiny.
Action Point: Medical institutions are required by Federal law to ask patients if they have completed an advance directive. "Advance directive" is a generic term that covers both Living Wills and Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care documents. If you sign a Living Will, or a poorly-worded Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care that states you do not want “life-sustaining treatment”, you may be signing your death warrant.
If you have not signed a Living Will, don't! If you have signed a Living Will, the Illinois Right to Life Committee (IRLC) urges you revoke it by locating the copies and destroying them. [The same advice applies to a poorly-worded Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care.]
As an advance directive, IRLC urges you to sign only a life-affirming version of the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. The IRLC's Patient Self-Protection Document [available for review at: http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/pspdoc.htm] provides such a life-affirming Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care. Obtain it by calling Illinois Right to Life at (312) 422-9300. Protect yourself now from those who see death as the solution for difficult health care decisions.
RFFM.org Editor's Note: If you already have a living will, rip up all copies--held by yourself or family members. Then contact every medical agency who may have made a copy of your living will and advise them the document is no longer valid. Finally, access the IRLC's Patient Self-Protection Document or find a similar life-affirming organization in your city or town which provides like-minded documents. If you have further questions, seek the advice of a trusted lawyer or call the IRLC at the above number.
Just phoned the number listed and they indicate the document referenced is available online.
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.