September 23rd 2017


  Buy Issue 3005
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY Labor's vision for a transgender world

EDITORIAL Liddell closure: acid test for Turnbull

EUTHANASIA We risk turning our doctors into death dealers

DOCUMENTARY Harvested Alive: killing Falung Gong in China

AGENDA FOR AUSTRALIA Distorted jobless stats defeat planning efforts

ENVIRONMENT Hurricane Harvey: don't let a good disaster go to waste

AFL GRAND FINAL Bob Santamaria predicted the sunset of Aussie Rules

HISTORY After 500 years, is sugar going sour?

IDEOLOGY OF TRANSGENDERISM Reshaping our identities and relationships

MUSIC The Sequence: it's elementary

CINEMA The Hitman's Bodyguard: 'Eighties' action with popcorn

BOOK REVIEW One of globalisation's dwindling band

POETRY

HUMOUR

LETTERS

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE For bullying, look left, look left, and then look left again

Books promotion page
FONT SIZE:

EUTHANASIA
We risk turning our doctors into death dealers


by Paul Russell

News Weekly, September 23, 2017

We’re told repeatedly that having the “option” for an early death by way of a lethal dose or a lethal injection will help our medical professionals talk more openly to their patients about their medical situation and their eventual death. This is a slur upon the medical profession.

Professionals who deal with patients with difficult diagnoses know well how to have full and frank conversations about all sorts of matters with their patients. Simply because they cannot currently agree to assist their patient to die by suicide or euthanasia doesn’t mean that the conversation does not happen; that there is no resolution to the question. The reverse may actually be the case; the inclusion of such an option may change those conversations for the worse.

This is because an adverse diagnosis may see a patient push for a prognosis where, absent a law, there may have been no pressing need. They have every right to gain some perspective on life expectancy, certainly, but skilled medical professionals will normally shun providing a time line to death, simply because, at the early stages of many cancers any determination outside “days to live” is fraught with inaccuracy.

As one palliative specialist told me recently: “The problem is, if you say three months, for example, every day after the three months the person expects to die that day – it creates additional anxiety. If you say three months, and the person dies earlier, people say they felt unprepared.

“To prognosticate more specifically is always fraught, because you will always be wrong!”

The early days, weeks and even months of a difficult diagnosis/prognosis are incredibly difficult. The person’s life and plans are thrown up in the air. It’s the same for family members. The world as they know it seems to stop for a while. What will it all mean? Will their thoughts turn to thinking about an “early exit” and even asking their doctor about it? Sure will. Even those most firmly opposed to assisted suicide or euthanasia will surely have such thoughts, even if only for a moment. The availability of the option may compel the conversation.

Right now, here’s how a clinician would respond: “If a patient speaks of assisted suicide, it should trigger a clinical response to assess fully the suffering experience, to dissect out its components and act to reduce each one (for example, pain, depression, anxiety, fear of dependence, nausea, family conflict, wills and estates etc).”

If Premier Daniel Andrews gets his way and assisted suicide and euthanasia become legal options in Victoria, people may still submit to such clinical good practice, but they may not. In the latter case if a patient persistently asks for assisted suicide, will a medical professional succumb to that pressure when he or she knows well that clinical best practice may resolve the underlying reasons for the request?

Remember, under the Victorian proposal it is the patient himself who determines whether his pain and suffering is intolerable. The doctors must simply acknowledge the assertion. Remember also that a prognosis of 12 months or less to live is determined, for the sake of qualifying for the new law, on the basis that the person does not accept any treatment. The person may have years to live with good care and may even experience remission. None of this will sit well with professional clinicians whose role is to treat and to care.

Medical professionals are understandably reluctant to provide prognoses for reasons already explored. Experience will guide them, rather, to look to treatment options, to build genuine hope, to solve existential difficulties and to forge a relationship of trust with their patient.

Pro-euthanasia advocates are keen to point out that the data from Oregon shows that there’s a cohort of people who receive the lethal dose who do not eventually take it; the argument being that the very presence of the option is somehow palliative. It gives them some peace of mind. This is likely to be true. However, that’s not the full story and it is a dangerous and unnecessary path to take when there are other clinical options at the disposal of medical professionals that may have precisely the same effect without the grave risk.

My palliative-care contact observes: “The lethal drug making people feel more in control, indicates to me the anxiety element to their suffering experience, which needs to be recognised (as do family anxieties) and treated; if these things are missed (as they often are) by the doctor, people tend to think of legalistic solutions.”

His reference to doctors reflects a common sentiment among palliative-care professionals that general practitioners have insufficient training to detect and to treat in the manner described. “I maintain a large part of the background problem is poor knowledge of palliative care in the average doctor and average nurse.”

Yet it may be such doctors that become part of the assisted-suicide regime, referring their patients to likeminded colleagues for the mandated second assessment. The recommendation that such doctors need to be “qualified as a Fellow of a College” does not mean that they necessarily have the same level of clinical skills as do their palliative-care counterparts. One of the two confirming doctors would need to have expertise in the person’s illness, but the level of expertise is not further defined. It is entirely possible that a small cohort of doctors may decide, to make things easier for themselves and their patient, to refer to each other; making a sham of the assessment process.

One only need look to the report on the suicide cases under the short-lived Northern Territory law in the 1990s to see just how ineffective such processes can be. There, even the mandated psychiatric assessment (note: not to be mandated in Victoria) was successfully circumvented.




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Love may be love, but certainly consequences are consequences

COVER STORY Our unsafe schools are putting students at risk

COVER STORY Labor's vision for a transgender world

CANBERRA OBSERVED 'What's the question?' is the crucial question

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE For bullying, look left, look left, and then look left again

EDITORIAL Turnbull needs a circuit breaker or he's a goner

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Beijing applauds jailing of Hong Kong activists



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am