could this be euthanasia?
Question from Anonymous on 7/5/2008:
Dear Judie, If a terminally ill patient begins to eat and drink less over several weeks before passing and their advance directives were to not resusitate or use anything artificial, including no feeding tube or IV hydration and because of this when the person's pain and agitation became so that medication needed for pain and agitation rendered the person unconcious and the person died one week later waking only once in the middle of that week to drink, how does one ever know if the person was allowed to die or death was hastened by those the patient gave the power to decide? Is there really any difference between this and euthanasia even when those with the power think they are doing the right thing?
Answer by Judie Brown on 7/6/2008:
Dear Anonymous
If I understand this correctly, the patient had signed an advanced directive that stipulated that nothing should be done to resusciatate him, and that in that definition he includuded nutrition and hydration. First of all, this is totally contradictory because nutrition and hydration do not resuscitate; they are provided to keep the patient comfortable and so that he does not suffer the terrible effects of starvation.
So when the patient began to suffer the pain and agony of starvation, increased pain medication was provided? is that what you are saying? If so, then euthanasia was committed.
I repeat, nutrition and hydration are not forms of resuscitation. Apparently nobody bothered to explain this to the individual when he was preparing his advanced directive, and even worse, whoever was in charge of his care simply did not bother to differentiate.
I think the tragedy in all this is that nutrition and hydration have been redefined as treatment rather than what they actually are: comfort care or humane care.
Judie Brown
Question from Anonymous on 7/5/2008:
Dear Judie, If a terminally ill patient begins to eat and drink less over several weeks before passing and their advance directives were to not resusitate or use anything artificial, including no feeding tube or IV hydration and because of this when the person's pain and agitation became so that medication needed for pain and agitation rendered the person unconcious and the person died one week later waking only once in the middle of that week to drink, how does one ever know if the person was allowed to die or death was hastened by those the patient gave the power to decide? Is there really any difference between this and euthanasia even when those with the power think they are doing the right thing?
Answer by Judie Brown on 7/6/2008:
Dear Anonymous
If I understand this correctly, the patient had signed an advanced directive that stipulated that nothing should be done to resusciatate him, and that in that definition he includuded nutrition and hydration. First of all, this is totally contradictory because nutrition and hydration do not resuscitate; they are provided to keep the patient comfortable and so that he does not suffer the terrible effects of starvation.
So when the patient began to suffer the pain and agony of starvation, increased pain medication was provided? is that what you are saying? If so, then euthanasia was committed.
I repeat, nutrition and hydration are not forms of resuscitation. Apparently nobody bothered to explain this to the individual when he was preparing his advanced directive, and even worse, whoever was in charge of his care simply did not bother to differentiate.
I think the tragedy in all this is that nutrition and hydration have been redefined as treatment rather than what they actually are: comfort care or humane care.
Judie Brown
No comments:
Post a Comment