|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Terminating Life Support: The Right to Live or Die with Dignity
Shirley Behnk
Linda Slabaugh
Lori Trouille
University of Phoenix Online
Instructor: Susan Payne
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Terminating Life Support: The Right to Live or Die with Dignity
In recent years, terminating life support has become the subject of public debate and legislative action across the nation. ... Patients receiving health care often worry that if they become incompetent and unable to express their wishes, they may be subject to medical interventions that sustain their existence, but not necessarily their quality of life (Kamm, 1997). ...
The term and definition of “Life Sustaining Treatment” differ from state to state. Some states use the term “Life Sustaining Procedure” or “Life Prolonging Procedure”, while others used the term “Death Delaying Procedure”. For instance, Indiana State uses the term “Life Prolonging Procedure” which is defined as: “any medical procedure, treatment or intervention that does the following: “Use mechanical or other artificial means to sustain, restore, or supplant a vital function. ... ” California uses the term Life Sustaining Treatment, which is defined as: “Any medical procedure or intervention that when administered to qualified patient, will serve only to prolong the process of dying or an irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state”. Illinois on the other hand uses the term “Death Delaying Procedure” which means,
Any medical procedure or intervention which, when applied to the qualified patient, in the judgment of the attending physician would serve only to postpone the movement of death, In appropriate circumstances, such procedures include, but not limited to, assisted ventilation, artificial kidney treatment, intravenous feeding or medication, blood transfusions, tube feeding and other procedures of greater or lesser magnitude that serve only to delay death. However, this act does not affect the responsibility of the attending physician or other health care provider to provide treatment for the patient’s comfort care or alleviation of pain, Nutrition and hydration shall not be withdrawn or withheld from a qualified patient, if the withdrawal or withholding would result in death solely from dehydrating or starvation rather than from the existing terminal condition (American Medical Association [AMA], 1994).
Terminating life support is a controversial, moral and ethical issue. John Paul ll (2004), addressed the issues regarding “Life-Sustaining Treatments” and “Vegetative State”, he stated in his speech that,
Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a “vegetative state” retain human dignity in all its fullness. ... I would like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. ...
The American Medical association defines “Life-Sustaining Treatment” as: “any treatment that serves to prolong life with out reversing the underlying medical condition. Life sustaining treatments may include, but not limited to, mechanical ventilation, renal dialysis, chemotherapy, antibiotics, an artificial nutrition and hydrations” (AMA, 1994).
The decision to withhold or withdrawal “Life Sustaining Therapy” from a loved one can be a very emotional and devastating. The majority of clients, who die in the intensive care unit, do so after a decision has been made to terminate the life support, the individuals death transpires during or shortly after. A decision to terminate life support is usually a response to avoid prolong suffering. The decision to terminate life-sustaining therapy can ultimately wind up in the courts hands, especially if there is a disagreement amoungst family member.
Approximate Word count = 2761
Approximate Pages = 11
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|