Earlier today there was a thread regarding Dr. Kevorkian's release from prison. Just as I was adding my thoughts, it got moved to the Current Events restricted area.
At that time, it seemed like there was 100% support for him. Honestly, I was surprised, especially since not everyone he killed was terminally ill. (I'm from Michigan, though, so maybe I know more about his history).
So I'm wondering, do nurses generally support the theory of physician assisted suicide?
Specializes in ICU, HOME HEALTH, NURSING EDUC, CASE MGT.
Amen to that RNPATL! Bless the nurses who are in the field of Hospice and Pallitive Nursing. They are really special souls for what they do! We can only wait and see the outcome of how PAS will impact nursing in the near future.
This is quite a polarized topic. My opposition to PAS is indeed related to my moral and perhaps religious views. I do not think I as a health care provider should knowingly administer or help somebody self administer a substance that will cause their death. I am in a profession that supports life and I took a pledge where I swore to God and everybody else that I would not knowingly administer a harmful drug. I do understand people will interpret this differently; however, I hope that inspite of disagreement you will at least respect my stance.
No one is disrespecting either stance. However, the issue at hand here is the "quality of life" vs. the "quantity of life." As I see it, those that do NOT support PAS are taking the high ground, using religion and morality as a foundation and the "do no harm" pledge of the medical professional as a step stool upon that foundation. But are we really "doing no harm" by letting terminal patients suffer while they linger toward the inescapable end?
I think a large amount of you who oppose PAS are doing so on religious grounds, and are using the "do no harm" stance as a convenient excuse.
PAS has been in place in Oregon for a long time. I voted for it twice and I would vote for it any where I lived. I had to watch my granmother go through a agonizing death with colon cancer and live on a MS pump for the last three months of her life. WHAT KIND OF DIGNITY IS THAT!!! Yes there are guide lines in Oregon and not everyone is running up to Oregon to use it. If I remember right the first year less then 20 qualified for PAS, less then 10 opted for it and only four actually obtained the drugs. Out of those four only one actually went through with it. She had a family party to say good bye. This lady went to be with our lord Jesus Christ in a dignified manner and got to say good bye to her family in the manner she wanted and not what a physician decided.
So for those who are saying no, and have never had to sit with a loved one as they where dying. Take a real hard look at the next patient you have to take care of who has no hope of living and ask your self. Would I want to be lying there in that condition and go through the pain?
To all the nurses out there doing there job day in and day out, we have a hard job, and we are the controllers of our destiny.
May God bless all the Nurses and give them strength to carry on.
I think a large amount of you who oppose PAS are doing so on religious grounds, and are using the "do no harm" stance as a convenient excuse.
My opinion only, folks.
My opposition to PAS is because, in reality, suicide [def: The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself] cannot be 'assisted' and still remain a suicide. Once one assists a person to take their own life, the person can no longer be considered a suicide since they needed an accomplice that performed premeditated actions that directly lead to another's death. What I resent is the way society uses nice sounding phrases (euphemisms) to masquerade the truth. For instance, "the Patriot Act"-if you aren't for it, you aren't a patriot? "Euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker. When a phrase is used as a euphemism, it often becomes a metaphor whose literal meaning is dropped" So, if a euphemism is needed for the act of facilitating a terminal pts death, I look at it as a cover-up for something that is offensive, disturbing or troubling.
Now, I am not saying that a person should suffer in any way. If a person needs what turns out to be a lethal dose of a narcotic in order to obtain pain relief, then, by all means, that person should obtain the pain relief. Since the goal/intent was to relieve the pain, the by-product of that attempt to relieve the pain was death. Now, if the goal is to cause death in order to relieve the pain, you would be attempting murder. IT'S ALL IN THE INTENT. If 100 mg of morphine is what a person will need to relieve their suffering, they should get it if they understand what the consequences could be. But, KCl IVP would only have one intended outcome... It actually takes more work and concern (following the principles of do no harm [as in the harm that pain/suffering brings about]) to intend to medicate with the goal of complete pain relief, than it does to 'assist' with suicide. Both ways may end the same; but, which way followed the holistic model of nursing more closely? It seems to be a more 'convenient excuse' to assist a person with an outright lethal dose of something, than to assist them in achieving total pain relief without the person (or their family) feeling possible last moment guilt because the intent was to die rather than acheive pain control.
I must agree with Critterlover's Post and Comments.It was pointed out quite clearly,that everyone can make Decisions about their Healthcare,so the same should apply to a terminal ill and suffering Person where nothing more can be done.However,strict Laws and Guidelines need to be in Place first and also strictly adhered too.
But it is still very much a controversial Subject and might be for some Time.
Ah, but it is suicide. The physician gives the means to the pt, yes, but the pt executes the actual act. It is physician assisted because the physician provides the means.
Ah, but it is suicide. The physician gives the means to the pt, yes, but the pt executes the actual act. It is physician assisted because the physician provides the means.
I have no idea what you just said. You should have been a high school teacher.
My opposition to PAS is because, in reality, suicide [def: The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself] cannot be 'assisted' and still remain a suicide.
Good point. I vote we call it "End My Suffering Now Or I Will Come Back And Haunt You For The Rest Of Your Life!" (EMSOIWCBAHYFTROYL), or OFF-ME for short.
Once one assists a person to take their own life, the person can no longer be considered a suicide since they needed an accomplice that performed premeditated actions that directly lead to another's death.
You're in the wrong profession. You should have been a lawyer!
What I resent is the way society uses nice sounding phrases (euphemisms) to masquerade the truth. For instance, "the Patriot Act"-if you aren't for it, you aren't a patriot? "Euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker. When a phrase is used as a euphemism, it often becomes a metaphor whose literal meaning is dropped" So, if a euphemism is needed for the act of facilitating a terminal pts death, I look at it as a cover-up for something that is offensive, disturbing or troubling.
Now I'm certain you should have been a lawyer.
Now, I am not saying that a person should suffer in any way. If a person needs what turns out to be a lethal dose of a narcotic in order to obtain pain relief, then, by all means, that person should obtain the pain relief.
Unfortunately, that doesn't happen, does it? Even PCA's are rigged.
Earlier today there was a thread regarding Dr. Kevorkian's release from prison. Just as I was adding my thoughts, it got moved to the Current Events restricted area.
At that time, it seemed like there was 100% support for him. Honestly, I was surprised, especially since not everyone he killed was terminally ill. (I'm from Michigan, though, so maybe I know more about his history).
So I'm wondering, do nurses generally support the theory of physician assisted suicide?
Speaking only for myself... I support dignity in dying, and that the terminal person has a right to determine at least in part how and when that is to occur.
The big problem is that there is a slippery slope down which both Belgium and Switzerland have slid. It is reported that over 50% of the deaths in Belgium under their euthanasia laws are not done persuant to the signature of the involved party. In Switzerland about 3 years ago it was a lot better, in that only disinterested non-professional people were permitted to act in the 'angel of death' role. What I've heard recently is that there are those who have learned to bypass the safeguards.
That's the real problem. It is so difficult to generate a fool-proof way of doing this or any important thing safely and ethically, because of the infinite ingenuity of the fools.
On paper, it all looks so very good. Then again so does Marxist communism. and it is excellent, until you add humans to the mix.
To the credit of the American way of doing this; the last report I heard out of Oregon, which state has assisted suicide legalized, only some 50 people have availed themselves of getting the medications and only a small percentage of those have actually carried their suicide through.
If we can make it so that no greedy relative, conservator or attorney can make a dime from the suicide, then I think it is a good idea to have Physician Assisted Suicide.
If we cannot make it so, and it attracts the greedy and the selfish, then I support making PAS a highest degree felony, punishable by everything up to but not including death, for everyone involved in inducing the death. (wouldn't want to make the State or the judiciary a hypocrite with this after all)
I do agree I could be completely wrong in my assessment. This is, none-the-less, an old fogey Hospice LVN's couple'a Lincoln coins worth.
65 year-old man with end-stage pulmonary disease arrives to the ED complaining of excrutiating abdominal pain; exam/tests show bowel perforation. Surgery is not an option due to the patient's state of respiratory compromise. How should the nurses and doctors care for this patient?
The patient was admitted to the hospital for comfort care measures. Morphine was given to the patient, which did not touch his pain. The wife was in distress seeing her husband in such pain. But, the patient has pulmonary disease and increasing the morphine dose could potentially have adverse respiratory effects. So, do you withhold the morphine? Or do you continue to give it until the pain is diminished, despite the potential for adverse respiratory effects?
This is a true story. Morphine was titrated until the patient had relief from his pain and suffering. Shortly thereafter, he peacefully took his last breath with his wife at his side.
The ethical principle of "double effect" was followed for this patient. Double-effect basically means that if there are two outcomes to a situation (one good and one bad) and the "good" outcome outweighs the "bad" outcome, then the unintended, harmful effect of an action is defensible.
For all of the posters who say they would never give medication to a patient if it would hasten and/or result in their death: the world is not black and white and death is not always pain-free,. Nursing isn't just about life, as another poster stated. It is about caring for the individual across the lifespan, from birth to death. It is my belief that giving someone a good death is just as rewarding as saving someone's life.
91C_ARMYLPN
80 Posts
Amen to that RNPATL! Bless the nurses who are in the field of Hospice and Pallitive Nursing. They are really special souls for what they do! We can only wait and see the outcome of how PAS will impact nursing in the near future.