A recent article in the Washington Post produced by Kaiser Health News and written by Melissa Bailey asserts that openly discussing a self-controlled death, no matter how rational the discussion, is viewed by some people as “subversive” or, at least, out of the ordinary or suspect.
Suicide is not merely too harsh or blunt or embarrassing or unpleasant or offensive when applied to a self-controlled death. It is inaccurate based on its meaning and associations accumulated over time. The search for more accuracy in our descriptions continues.
One of the most organized efforts to defeat right-to-die (RTD) legislation wherever it is proposed is spear-headed by Not Dead Yet (NDY) under its current President, Diane Coleman. NDY claims to represent, or be representative of, at least 12 disability rights groups who oppose RTD legislation. Coleman’s failed appeal to Maine Governor Janet Mills to veto the RTD law, passed narrowly by Maine’s legislature, presents an outline of the arguments used to oppose such RTD laws.
Are patients in nursing homes more likely to die from suicide? A look at a recent report on the subject in the Annals of Long-Term Care.
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.
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.
