| |||||||||||||||
Despite its general merits, A Time to Die suffers from several weaknesses. A theoretical question underlying the debate is the ethical distinction between, or equivalence of, physician-assisted death and the legally established, standard practice of forgoing life-sustaining treatment. McKhann effectively rebuts the traditional argument for a moral distinction: that it is the disease that causes death when life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn, whereas in physician-assisted suicide it is the provision of lethal medication that causes death and that terminating life is the intent of physician-assisted death but not typically of the withdrawal of treatment. Yet McKhann does not discuss the position that refusal of treatment, but not assisted death, is grounded in the basic right of persons to be free of unwanted bodily intrusion. According to that perspective, when a competent patient refuses life-sustaining treatment, physicians are morally obligated to comply. In contrast, competent, terminally ill patients are not owed assistance toward death as a right, though it may be the best option for patients facing intolerable suffering.
Within the penumbra of the patient's right to refuse medical treatment is the right to hasten death by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking. McKhann mentions but does not give due attention to this important alternative to physician-assisted death. This legally permitted option may seem less humane than the swift means of ingesting or injecting lethal medication; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that a peaceful death can be achieved by refusing food and water, provided that the patient receives standard palliative and supportive care. The time required to bring about death by ceasing to eat and drink, typically from a few days to a few weeks, should be compared with a mandatory two-week waiting period following a request for lethal medication -- a feature of the law in Oregon legalizing physician-assisted suicide and similar legislative proposals elsewhere. This alternative arguably displays greater evidence of the self-determination of patients and poses less threat to the professional integrity of physicians.
The weakest chapter of the book addresses the concern that legalizing physician-assisted death would invite intolerable abuse. McKhann appears confident that physicians empowered to assist patients in dying will engage in this practice responsibly. For example, he argues that "if withdrawing treatment is not considered to be an easy way out, assisted dying is even less likely to be." This may be true for euthanasia by lethal injection. But prescribing lethal medication at the request of a terminally ill patient, and not knowing whether the patient will actually use the drugs to cause death, may be a tempting "quick fix," obviating the demanding work of caring for the dying. Moreover, McKhann's position that physician-assisted death, authorized by patients' advance directives, should be available to patients with severe dementia is fraught with peril. It remains an open question whether safeguards such as mandatory consultation by an independent physician would provide adequate protection of vulnerable patients. In view of realistic concern about the potential for abuse, there is reason to doubt McKhann's prediction that the legalization of physician-assisted death, beyond the Oregon referendum, is inevitable.
Reviewed by Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1998 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. The New England Journal of Medicine is a registered trademark of the MMS.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Should Physicians Ever Help their Patients to Die?,
By
This review is from: A Time to Die: The Place for Physician Assistance (Paperback)
Charles F. McKhann, MD A Time to Die: The Place for Physician Assistance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999) (ISBN: 0-300-07631-2; hardcover) (Library of Congress call number: R726.R355 1999) (Medical call number: W50M47847t 1999) A physician and professor at a medical school discusses all perspectives on physician-assisted voluntary death. First, some common situations in which the patient wishes to reduce his or her suffering by choosing the most appropriate time to die: cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, pain. The person who is inevitably dying might not want to dissipate his or her estate in futile medical care. Being able to pass some wealth to the next generation sometimes means more to the dying individual than a few more days or weeks of low-quality 'life'. Sometimes patients ask doctors to help them to die for irrational 'reasons'. The full situation should be assessed before discussing the best timing of death. Alternatives to voluntary death should be explored first: comfort care, pain relief, hospice care. If such methods do not handle the situation satisfactorily, then the doctor has some other methods which will assist the patient to the desired goal --a peaceful, painless, & dignified death. Some of these methods of assistance are now legal: (1) The doctor can provide sleeping medication and/or pain-control drugs, which have as a known side-effect shortening the dying process. This could even take the form of 'terminal sedation', in which the patient is kept unconscious until natural death. (2) In the states of Oregon and Washington, the doctor can even write a prescription for gentle poison once several safeguards have been fulfilled. (3) If the patient is being sustained by some form of life-support, all concerned can agree to discontinue such supports. Natural death will quickly follow. (4) If all concerned agree that death by dehydration would be the best path, then food and water can be withheld and the doctor can order additional medications which can eliminate the unpleasant aspects of this means of dying. When considering legal methods of assisting a voluntary death, completely open discussions can involve all who care about the life and well-being of the dying patient. Dr. McKhann discusses the Dutch experience of voluntary death with doctor assistance. The experience of the Netherlands has uncovered several problems, which can be corrected in any new legislation in the United States. What about people who have requested death in an Advance Directive or other careful document but who slip into a semi-conscious state before they can request death one last time? How realistic is it to require the patient to be awake and capable up to the last moment before death? Why should the law authorizing physician aid-in-dying require reporting to the coroner and/or the public prosecutor? A physician-assisted voluntary death is not a suspicious death. And no crime has been committed. Law-enforcement officials have no training in the right-to-die. Whatever reporting to public authorities is required should take place before the death, not after, in case this death might be premature. Reporting after the death could have no positive outcome. Thus, many Dutch physicians do not correctly report their physician-assisted voluntary deaths. These deaths are just reported as deaths from natural causes, which do not involve the police, the public prosecutor, or the courts in any way. Physicians are rightly concerned about the legal aspects of helping their patients to die. Not only is it illegal in most states, but they might also be sued by a distant relative who did not approve of the voluntary death. Also, doctors do not want to be publicly associated with assisted dying. They have been trained to cure, not kill. And most of the professional medical groups are opposed to any physicians assisting in dying. When Dr. McKhann asked other physicians for their opinions, most said that they would be more willing to help their patients die in the last weeks of life if it were legal, moral, & professional to do so. The public resists physician-assisted voluntary death because of fears of abuse and mistakes. Like all other human beings, doctors do sometimes make mistakes. But the public does not call for an end to air transportation because pilots sometimes make mistakes that result in the deaths of everyone on board those planes. However, most cases of physician-assisted voluntary death are nowhere near the error zone. There is no rush to achieve death this instant. And if there are doubts about the wisdom of this voluntary death, then other opinions can be obtained --from other doctors and relatives not yet consulted. Some public worries also relate to the possibility of greedy relatives, who hope to get their hands on their inheritance a bit sooner. But most can wait a few weeks for their money. And if there is any such doubt, the full situation should be brought into the open. Even more unlikely is the rare case of the mad doctor, who gets some kind of enjoyment out of killing people. Occasionally doctors have been exposed as serial killers. But outlawing the right-to-die is probably not much help in dealing with any doctors who relish the power of killing their patients. Physicians who wish to kill their patients can already kill them in a thousand ways without pretending that it has anything to do with the right-to-die. Careful detective work is the best way to catch these doctors. We already have good laws against murder. The criminal-justice system should deal with this problem. The public also worries that the 'right-to-die' will be applied first to vulnerable people. But the facts point in the opposite direction: The vulnerable people get little or no health care at all. Neglected patients will not get any special attention from doctors who want to help them to die. With respect to less-favored groups of people, doctors are already wary of providing sub-standard care. Dr. McKhann reviews the standard safeguards for life-ending decisions: 1. requests from the patient while still capable of making decisions. 2. doctors' opinions about prognosis and treatment options. 3. psychiatric evaluation of the candidate if there is any doubt. 4. waiting period to avoid impulsive death. 5. full reporting of all material facts. Such safeguards can probably be improved, perhaps even to the degree needed to win over some opponents of the right-to-die who raise the specter of people being put to death for the benefit of the state. The discussion of the right-to-die should be kept completely separate from the discussion about health-care costs. Finally Dr. McKhann explores the legal basis for the right-to-die. The US Constitution grants us privacy and the equal protection of the laws. This includes reproductive freedom and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments. But the US Supreme Court has resisted finding a right-to-die in the Constitution. This is a proper area for legislative change by the states. Most of the laws against assisting suicide are more than 100 years old, written long before modern medical technology. Such laws were intended to keep everyone from assisting an irrational suicide. We need new laws to allow physicians to assist in a voluntary death, which is completely wise, compassionate, well-planned, & rational. The present system of secret assistance in dying is open to more mistakes and abuse than if we made choosing the best time for death an open, rational discussion in which all concerned persons would have a voice. For example, as long as assisting a patient to die remains illegal, the doctor is not inclined to ask for a second professional opinion about the advisability of choosing death now rather than following the pattern for standard terminal care. Most of the family members must be kept in the dark about the life-ending decision because of the fear of prosecution. Only informal, personal safeguards are applied. Any new laws regarding the right-to-die would bring the decision-making process into the open, where public safeguards would be applied to every case. A Time to Die: The Place for Physician Assistance is a wise and compassionate book about the prospect of physicians helping their patients to die. It does not break any new ground in the discussion, but the fact that it was published shows that we are more open to the possibility of making reasoned choices at the end of life. Dr. McKhann believes that it is only a matter of time before physician assistance in voluntary deaths will be approved... Read more ›
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|