A brief look at suicide historically, philosophically, constitutionally, legally, and practically as a right to all who value liberty.
Read More
Whether intentionally or inadvertently, a recent article in the Washington Post, written by a reporter with Kaiser Health News, provides confusing, incomplete, misleading, and perhaps inaccurate information about the choices a person with dementia may have. It dismisses legal issues by citing opinions from non-legal professionals.
On this blog, we have dealt often with aspects of advance directives. To prepare for using a dementia directive, readers may benefit from a discussion of the development of advance directives and problems with their language. References to several dementia directives or supplements are provided.
In Part 1, I provided an actual case of unwanted life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), listed Professor Pope’s “Twelve Leading Causes of Unwanted Life-Sustaining Treatment,” gave the causes of action that may be available for unwanted LSMT, and briefly discussed Physician’s Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) and other similar documents used in various states. Here, in Part 2, I delve further into Professor Pope’s research on unwanted LSMT.
In Part 2 of this post about dementia, disability, and advance directives, Lamar Hankins challenges Dresser’s assertion that an advance directive that calls for allowing a person to die in the later stages of dementia should be ignored in favor of her view of what care is appropriate.
In Part 1 of this essay, I introduced two competing arguments concerning using advance directives to control what is done to our bodies should we become mentally incompetent.
As explained previously, the sole purpose of advance directives is to record one’s decisions about medical and related care if a person becomes unable to make such decisions later because of mental incapacity. To explain the range of options that are available both before and after such incapacity, I’ll use a personal example.
Visitor Count:
