Colorado is now the 5th state to adopt a form of physician-assisted suicide.
O' wait, I said that the wrong way... "Death with dignity" or "Right to die"
What do you think about the law?
Will it, at some point in the future, fall into NPs hands?
Apparently, insurance companies in California feel great about denying a terminally ill mother costly chemo tx and offering to subsidize a life-ending treatment for $1.20.
Can you imagine? I could potentially extend my life, again for my children, for a few months but bankrupt my family or I could end it all for the cost of a cheeseburger...
Specializes in FNP, Retail Health, Primary Care, Corrections.
We are kinder to our pets than we are our patients. Dying with dignity should be a choice afforded to everyone. This is the kind of nursing I would like to do, unfortunately, it is still illegal in my state.
Well...TBH I think dying quickly via lethal injection would be better than not having that option and opting for refusing treatment and dying slowly and possibly painfully...that's just my two cents though.
Having said that, I do not think that insurance companies should have ANY input on this matter whatsoever. It shouldn't even be an issue that insurers can consider.
This is at the heart of my concern (I haven't mentioned "religion" a single time). Especially in a socialized, single payer medical model like Europe, it is no wonder they have already begun euthanasia without explicit consent.
I'm curious because I truly don't know but my knee jerk reaction was to doubt there are curative treatments for intractable pain such as with some end stage diseases ie bone cancer? however way out of my narrow area of expertise so I'd like to ask others if they have also found this to be true.
I consider it very much a false claim that all end of life pain can be managed.
I had a patient who came in for pain control for breast cancer with bone mets. She ended up hospice, but in the meantime she was either pacing, writhing, moaning, and crying in agony, or she was barely breathing because she was so sedated from the meds. There was no inbetween. If she was alert enough to perceive anything at all, it was searing pain.
I would have supported her right to choose a more swift death because that was her only alternative to suffering. And what point would there be in having her continue to suffer? Build character? Religious values? She didn't have enough function left to cognitively process how she might benefit from suffering.
I also support practitioners' right to not participate in the practice, and patients' rights to seek life-saving treatment even though it's more expensive than death.
But I know there are no easy answers or policies or laws that will protect everyone's rights, because it just never works that way in reality.
So, the same child that, if healthy, would be denied his ice cream if he didn't eat his brussel sprouts, can demonstrate and fully understand asking for death.
Ostensibly, these children can't consent to not doing their algebra, but they can consent to a doctor, not their disease, bringing about their death.
This is in my opinion very paternalistic. Children who have been forced to deal with serious illness for what often amounts to a significant part of their lives are mature and wise beyond their years.
I've heard children very clearly and eloquently express that they are done fighting. They just want it to be over. I breaks my heart but I have no doubt in my mind that they knew and understood what it was they were expressing. After years of surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation therapy and prolonged hospital stays, they can absolutely reach a point where they have had enough. In my limited experience of pediatric oncology, it's usually the parents who for understandable reasons cling to hope long after the child has fully understood and accepted the lay of the land.
This is at the heart of my concern (I haven't mentioned "religion" a single time). Especially in a socialized, single payer medical model like Europe, it is no wonder they have already begun euthanasia without explicit consent.
I'm actually angered by this claim. What exactly are you implying here? Who is it that is "killing off" certain segments of the population? Why is it being done (according to you)? Why do you mention "socialized, single payer"?
You keep saying the "European model". I was hoping that my previous post/the question I asked you would make you reflect. I listed more than forty European countries for a reason. Unless I'm mistaken, there are more U.S. states than European countries which allows physician assisted suicide. Perhaps you should call it the "U.S. model"? Or at least refer to it correctly as the Dutch or Belgian model. Also, could you please stop mischaracterizing "the model"?
I'll just say that I think it's a bad idea because of what we see happening in Europe: Involuntary euthanasia happens at least hundreds of times per year and the criteria for requesting PAS has been reduced to simply being of a certain age and being "tired of living".
Could you provide any credible links that support these outrageous claims?
It's all right here in a peer reviewed medical journal (Just skip to the last couple of paragraphs to cut to the chase if you don't want to read the whole thing)
Are you serious? How many of us would have graduated if we limited ourselves to just reading abstracts or the "conclusions" part of an article? Don't you think that we are able to read an entire article? The only way to correctly assess the quality of an article is to read the whole thing. I'd like to thank Purrsx", BSN for linking the "smoke and mirrors" article. If she hadn't, I would have. In my opinion Perreira's article has so many flaws/inaccuracies it's not even funny.
That doesn't mean I don't care if anyone suffers.
I'm not saying that you don't care if a person suffers. I operate under the assumption that you do in fact care. The problem I have with your view is that you find it acceptable that a person suffers when they have clearly expressed that they don't have a desire to continue to do so. If they don't want that for themselves, I don't think the fact that youcare brings them much comfort. Their wish for themselves is not being honored/respected. Nursing isn't about the nurse. It's about the patient.
If you don't consider a peer reviewed oncology journal reliable, there isn't much more to talk about.
It is a known fact that Andrew Wakefield, a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, published a fraudulent 1998 research paper in the world-known peer-reviewed medical journal Lancet, claiming the link between the administration of the MMR vaccine and appearance of autism/bowel disease. This claim was consequently refuted by his peers in the same journal.
Shall we believe Dr. Wakefield's claim on the basis on the fact that his paper was published in Lancet and OP's personal belief that
If you don't consider a peer reviewed journal reliable, there isn't much more to talk about
?
Shall we consequently ban MMR vaccine on the basis on the above "evidence"?
Anyone can write an article with false claims, "supported" with non-existent sources or references to non-existent data from those sources, and that article will be published... until peers who know how to read research come up and refute the claim that is based on nothing but "wishful thinking".
This is what happened in J. Pereira's case (the article OP keeps posting again and again) - he posted lies that suited his agenda/bias, and got publicly "whipped" in the same peer-reviewed journal by his own peers.
I guess, OP somehow conveniently continues to overlook this and cite false data to prove own personal agenda. Or, perhaps, OP does not know how to read research articles and separate "wishful thinking" from scientific evidence (especially if this scientific evidence does not support OP's personal agenda/bias).
That is exactly how people lose credibility in the eyes of the community.
It's the individual's choice to live or die. This is a ridiculous and ancient topic. Don't like the future of hospice? There are options. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. If you don't like same sex marriage, avoid marrying someone of the same sex. If you don't like PAS, don't do it. I'm not some edgy liberal; I just don't participate in things I don't believe in.
Specializes in ICU, Telemetry, Cardiac/Renal, Ortho,FNP.
Short answer...hopefully NEVER! Unless you work hospice. We don't get paid enough to get sued so often. Start helping people off themselves and you'll be hit with lawsuits (frivolous or not) all the time.
As a former Oncology RN and now palliative care NP there are fates worse than death. Death is inevitable and I think our society is terrified of dying. Patients should have the option to determine when and if their life no longer has quality. I've seen family members make choices for procedures because they are not ready for their loved one to die. Meanwhile, the patient is literally wasting away in constant pain, incontinent, and developing bed sores. Humans give pets more humane deaths than relatives. Religious beliefs don't come into play for me. I find no dignity nor lessons to be learned through unnecessary suffering. If the day comes, PAS is approved in my state, my patients desire PAS, & as an NP it is possible then I would have no issue assisting them.
MediKateRN, MSN, APRN
9 Posts
We are kinder to our pets than we are our patients. Dying with dignity should be a choice afforded to everyone. This is the kind of nursing I would like to do, unfortunately, it is still illegal in my state.