Terminally Ill Patients Must Have the Right to Refuse Medical Treatment - Research Paper Example

? For the Terminally Ill Speeding Up Death By Refusing Medical Treatment Is More Dignified Than Being Treated Course Outline Thesis: For the terminally ill, speeding death by refusing treatment is more dignified than being treated, therefore it should be accepted by the medical community. I. Introduction A. What is Euthanasia B. Why is Euthanasia a hotly debated topic? II. Legal Issues A. Do courts support Euthanasia? B. Why do medical professionals support Euthanasia? III. The Patient's Rights A. The right to die with dignity B. When is it right to allow a patient to opt to refuse treatment? C. Why Doctor's support in Euthanasia is important IV. Conclusion V. Sources Abstract We have a whole generation of older people whose life spans are ever increasing thanks to the miracle of medical science. However, there are times when the increase in life expectancy does not equate to the suffering that the patients, sometimes terminally ill may be required to endure. That is why it is important for terminally ill patients to have the right to refuse medical treatment. Various medical organizations, supreme court precedents, state laws, and other evidences from authoritative figures will be presented in this paper in order to provide support to the claim that terminally ill patients must have the right to refuse medical treatment in in order to give them a more respectable end of life scenario. The Medical Community Should Support the Patient's Right to Speed Up Death We live in a world where the far medically advanced sources of life extension comes at a great cost to the patient. In most instances, medical care for the terminally ill becomes very prohibitive in cost, thus making the choice of prolonging the life of the person something that is no longer financially sound. In some instances, the terminally ill patient is just that, terminally ill. Beyond the help of medical science as man knows it to be. The patient then has to live a arduous life of pain and suffering because suicide is not a legal option. Nor do doctors openly support or suggest Euthanasia. This paper delves into the right of the patient to die according to his own standards and how the medical community, owing to the now existing Patient's Bill of Rights, must acknowledge and respect the right of a patient to refuse medical treatment in order to hasten his death if he so chooses to do so. Euthanasia is described by most as a medically induced method of ending a terminally patient's life. This can only be done with the support of the doctor in charge but is not openly spoken about because of the laws that prevent physicians from assisting their patients in ending their life. A practice that is frowned upon by the medical community because of its contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath that physicians take upon receiving their license to practice their medical expertise. The explanation for this is that “if however a patient expresses a desire for resuscitation, antibiotics, a blood transfusion, a tube feeding or ventilation in order to prolong life a while longer, the request is often deemed 'inappropriate' and refused. “ (The Right to Refuse Treatment”) Since doctors are not allowed to participate legally in any end of life cycle procedures that terminally ill patients may wish to undergo in order to end their suffering, the topic has become a hotly debated topic. What with some medical doctors actually helping their patients speed up their deaths by refusing medical care, although on the sly, it has come to the attention of most people that laws should be passed in order to force the medical community to respect the dying wish of terminally ill patients. The question of speeding up the death of a terminally ill patient at his request has become the focal point of a number of high profile legal cases where the courts were asked to decide upon the request of the patient. There have been enough notable cases about the issue that the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on the matter through Cruzan (110 S. CT. 2841, 111 L.ED. 2d 224 1990 ). Due to that ruling, more and more state courts have taken the stand that competent patients may be allowed to refuse medical treatment provided that they have a full understanding of the end result of the decision that they are making. (“Physician Law Review”) We have to be clear though that just because the courts allow competent adults to refuse medical care, they do not in any way, shape, or form endorse Euthanasia. Courts do not believe that the right to refuse life saving care is an unlimited right. Some situations, even with a competent adult terminally ill patient present: “... courts will determine that the right to refuse care is not absolute and will consider countervailing interests. Decision making in this arena is complex, and emergency physicians should seek advice from hospital counsel and administration. “ (Physician Law Review”) For medical professionals, they may not show open support of the patient's right to refuse medical treatment for the aforementioned reasons. However, they may opt to show their support for their patient's right to die in a respectable manner by allowing or “suggesting” that the patient and their family members choose the refusal of medical treatment option in dire medical cases. Under the Patient's Bill of Rights, the patient has the opportunity to opt to die with the dignity and grace of his choosing if he so desires. This includes the right to refuse medical treatment if he believes that medical treatment shall only prolong his suffering. Treatments and medical interventions such as dialysis for acute or chronic renal failure and medical ventilation for respiratory failure become evidently ill effective in treating the patient and in most instances, only add to the discomfort of the patient who is already facing his final days in our world. (“Termination of Life Sustaining Treatment”) Therefore, the option should be to make him most comfortable during his remaining hours. If he chooses to hasten his death by refusing medical treatment in order to experience a few hours or days of non medical related torture to prolong a life that he knows is soon to come to an end then so be it. It is every person's right to die with dignity. in the case of terminally ill patients refusing medical treatment in order to hasten their death is part of their rights as a patient and allows them to die in the manner of their choosing. That said, it is important to note that the decision to refuse medical care is not something that should be done haphazardly and under little to no advisement from medical professionals. After all, this is a human life we are talking about. This is a person who has family members who are suffering along with him and only want him to either get better or move on to the next stage of their eternal life as the case may be. There are a number of factors to consider before the patient and his family members agree to hastening death by refusing medical treatment. There are well known factors that can be considered by the terminally ill patient and his family members before deciding to refuse medical treatment. For example, if the patient has full control of his mental faculties and he is able to comprehend the final outcome of the decision he has made then refusing medical treatment can be justified. The patient must however, display that he has a full understanding of the medical situation he is in, what the medical treatment he is refusing is used for, and what the consequences of refusing the treatment may be. The patient must then, in full writing and under a legally acceptable document, refuse to be medically treated at that point. The main argument that is usually acceptable in such instances? Medically corroborated proof that the treatment being provided is no longer beneficial to the patient.(“Termination of Life Sustaining Treatment”) In other words, if the treatment stops working, then it is like giving the patient a sugar pill for his pain. It does nothing for him except prolong his agony. Therefore, the withdrawal of the treatment at that point is definitely justifiable both on a medical and legal basis. Some legal minds would argue that it is impossible to define when medical treatment will prove to be futile. The truth is that there are very solid proofs to support the claims of terminally ill patients that medical intervention is no longer helping them. This includes palliative care for increasingly painful treatment such as in cancer cases, or the use of artificial life support in order to keep the patient alive. That is no kind of life to live and the patient should very well have the right to refuse medical treatment if he will become nothing more than a medical guinea pig for the remainder of his days. It is of the utmost importance that the medical doctor in charge of the patient be well versed and supportive of the patient's right to refuse medical treatment in order to hasten his death. He must have a full understanding of the fact that the patient need not be terminally ill in order to refuse the treatment. The only criterion that needs to be present at the time that the patient makes the decision to refuse medical treatment is the scenario that he has less than 6 months to live. In the state of Washington, that is part of the package once a patient decides that he wishes to utilize the laws of the state that guarantee the right of terminally ill patients to refuse medical treatments. The state of Oregon even went further in their support for the terminally ill patient's right to refuse medical treatment by passing the Oregon Death with Dignity Act and publishing an accompanying handbook known as the “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act: A Guidebook for Healthcare Professionals” that details the reasons why physicians should be willing to support the patient's refusal of medical treatment and how they are legally protected in such instances (“{Physician's Frequently Asked Questions”). Gone are the days when the medical treatment of terminally ill patients was left in the hands of the doctors. These days, the medical treatment of a terminally ill patient is a family decision as well. Studies done by the Pew Research Institute have shown that there is 70% public support for terminally ill patients to be given the right to decide whether they wish to continue with their medical treatments or not. (“Strong Public Support for the Right to Die”) These are the people who believe that there are real world scenarios where the patient should be given the right to choose how and when he will die. The remaining 22 percent, believe that the decision as to whether a patient dies sooner rather than later should still rest in the hands of the medical healthcare professionals such as doctors and nurses. The 2006 survey of the Pew Institute also indicates that: “...among 1,500 adults, finds that while overall attitudes are largely stable, people are increasingly thinking about and planning for their own medical treatment in the event of a terminal illness or incapacitating medical condition.” (“Strong Public Support for the Right to Die”) People do not normally give a lot of thought as to how they wish to die and when. However, the advancement in medical care that gives the doctors the ability to prolong life long beyond the willingness of a patient to be treated has forced people to rethink the issue. Around 60 % of people now say that they would like to reserve the right to refuse medical treatment should they develop an incurable illness. (“Strong Public Support for the Right to Die”) The public must not be confused though, there is no way that a terminally ill patient's refusal of medical treatment should be confused with Physician Assisted Suicide. That is because in the case of a terminally ill patient, the patient has informed him personally of his decision based upon the medical discussions that he has participated in with his health care professional. In the case of the refusal of medical treatment deaths, the doctors and the hospital that treated the patient cannot be held liable in any malpractice law suits. In the end, it is important to recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court and the states of Washington and Oregon have acknowledge the right of a terminally ill patient to die by refusing medical treatment. That is enough of a directive for the medical community to do the same and accept the right of a terminally ill patient to refuse medical treatment if he wishes to do so. References N.A. (n.d.). Physician law review. thesullivangroup.com. Retrieved from http://www.thesullivangroup.com/risk_resources/refusal/refusal_2_refusal.asp N.A. (n.d.). Physician's frequently asked questions. Death With Dignity National Center. Retrieved from http://www.deathwithdignity.org/resources/physiciansquestions N.A. (1998). The Oregon death with dignity act: a guidebook for healthcare professionals. ohsu.edu. Retrieved from http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/continuing- education/center-for-ethics/ethics-outreach/upload/Oregon-Death-with-Dignity- Act- Guidebook.pdf N.A. (n.d.). The right to refuse medical treatment. life.org.nz. Retrieved from http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiaethicalkeyissues/patient-autonomy/ N.A. (2006). Strong public support for the right to die. Pew Research Center for People & the Press. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2006/01/05/strong-public-support-for- right-to-die/ N.A. (n.d.). Termination of life sustaining treatment. The World Federation of Right to Die Societes. Retrieved from http://www.worldrtd.net/qanda/termination-life-sustaining- treatment N.A. (n.d.). Termination of life sustaining treatment. University of Washington School of Medicine. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/termlife.html Read More