Author and retired technology expert Harwell Thrasher shares his experiences caring for his wife Sharon after she was diagnosed with ALS.
Read More
Words matter. Medical aid in dying (MAID or MAiD) is the term now widely accepted in law and medicine to describe the practice of a physician prescribing medication to a terminally ill, mentally competent, adult patient who may choose to ingest it to end suffering they find unbearable, and achieve a peaceful death. It is accurate language which should be used. Other terminology such as physician aid in dying may also be used, but increasingly there is a preference for the term medical aid in dying.
Recently, Derek Humphry wrote about the words we use to discuss end-of-life concerns in the US, focusing on the appropriateness of the term “suicide.” He did so, in part, to stimulate a discussion about the words we use. Like Humphry, I have no personal problem with the use of the term suicide–it accurately describes death by our own hand–but I resist it for several reasons.
The earlier five-part series looking at Thaddeus Pope’s analysis of the risks faced by clinicians who do not follow the advance directives of their patients has been augmented by a case that was recently settled for $1 million. The settlement was reported on March 28, 2019, in the North Coast Journal, Humboldt County, California.
End-of-life pain can be complex and not all such pain is easily or satisfactorily controlled. FEN member Craig Phillips shares his experiences with pain control while working as a volunteer in a hospice.
In March, Netflix released a six episode series written, acted, and directed by British comedian Ricky Gervais–”After Life.” The main character, Tony, has just lost his beloved wife, after 25 years of marriage, to cancer and is trying to get on with life or die in response to his profound, debilitating grief, which is expressed initially through nastiness toward others, without the normal inhibitions that control us.
In the previous five posts, I discussed Professor Thaddeus Pope’s legal research on life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) and end-of-life medical care. Two important points about advance directives (ADs) are not covered in Professor Pope’s treatise because they are not issues that are normally litigated.
This is the final post of the series reviewing Professor Thaddeus Pope’s analysis of why clinicians perceive that not following a patient’s preferences about end-of-life care carries little risk for them. Additional legal remedies (causes of action available against clinicians who ignore patient choices), along with administrative penalties, and possible criminal liability for clinicians in some jurisdictions are discussed.
In Part 4 of this review of Professor Thaddeus Pope’s analysis of liability for a clinician’s providing unwanted life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), the focus is on on why clinicians perceive that not following a patient’s preferences about end-of-life care carries little risk for them and looking at more recent successful causes of action against clinicians.
In this, Part 3 of my review of Professor Thaddeus Pope’s paper about the legal issues surrounding unwanted life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), I focus on problems with advance directives (ADs).
Visitor Count:
