But if desired? Is this terminology setting the stage for advance medical directives to order the withholding of spoon-feeding even though that isn’t “life-sustaining treatment”? I’m not sure. But it also states (my emphasis): “Offer food by mouth if feasible and desired.”įeasible, I get: When a person is dying they may naturally stop eating as the body shuts down. Section C of the form, “ARTIFICIALLY ADMINISTERED NUTRITION,” instructs whether, and for how long, to use a feeding tube. Once signed by patient/surrogate and doctor, it becomes a permanent part of a patient’s medical chart. For example, why not permit a directive to order that blankets be removed during a cold snap to increase the chances of contracting pneumonia? Less certain, to be sure: But basically the same idea.ĭemonstrating how far this agenda may have already penetrated the medical system, California’s Physician’s Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form contains some worrying language that could potentially be construed as authorizing the removal of food and water from patients capable of eating.
Thus, under Menzel and Chandler-Cramer’s theory, a patient should also be empowered to order the non-medical withholding of other forms of humane care to hasten their deaths. But spoon-feeding is considered “humane care”not the same thing at all. Think carefully about this: Advanced directives control decisions about medical treatments.
The authors justify their proposal with a utilitarian rationalization: Our argument for withholding food and water by mouth focuses not on food assistance per se, but on discerning two key points: when the dementia meets the triggering conditions described in the person’s directive and when the person’s continued stake in survival is sufficiently low that her current interests align with her earlier directive. Colette Chandler-Cramer create a sophistic argument to justify their conclusion: People have the right to commit VSED people also have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment in an advance medical directive hence, people have the right to order themselves starved to death (commit VSED via advance medical directive).
#Catholic teaching on withholding food to hasten death trial#
The trial judge refused, but the case is currently on appeal.Īdding to the momentum for self-ordered starvation, the Hastings Center Reportperhaps the world’s most prestigious bioethics journaljust published a major article arguing that people with advanced dementia who can still eat normally be starved to death, if they signed an advance medical directive expressing that desire.īioethicist Paul T. They sued the nursing home seeking a court order requiring the facility to intentionally starve Bentley. Her family sees this as a profound injustice. Thus, there is no immediately available legal way to make her dead even though that is what she clearly wanted.
And as for euthanasia, it’s illegal in Canada. Bentley is now in that condition, but she doesn’t require life supportso there is no treatment to withdrawand willingly accepts food and water by mouth, meaning that the conditions of her directive aren’t met. A believer in assisted suicide, Bentley signed an advance directive instructing that she be refused life-sustaining medical treatment and even be euthanized if she had Alzheimer’s and could no longer recognize her children. The case involves Margo Bentley, a woman from British Columbia. In Canada, a lawsuit has already been filed, and I consider it the most importantand dangerouslitigation in bioethics today. Some bioethicists even argue that nursing homes and hospitals should be legally required to starve patients who can eat and drink, if they have serious dementia and have ordered their starvation deaths in an advance medical directive. Some even agree to facilitate the death by helping palliate the potential agony that can be associated with starving and dehydrating. As a matter of respecting autonomy, doctors won’t force feed these suicidal people. So, activists promote a form of “self-deliverance” that they call “voluntary stopping eating and drinking,” (VSED), by which suicidal people declare their wish to starve to death. Removing feeding tubes from cognitively disabled people who can’t swallow has been allowed for decades, under the right to refuse unwanted “medical treatment.” But what about people who can eat and drink by mouth? Assisted suicide advocates argue that it isn’t fair that they can’t die too. Self-starvation has become the latest craze among the “death with dignity” crowd. This has been coming on for some time.
0 kommentar(er)
