One week ago, the state of Vermont passed legislation allowing Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) in its ‘Patient Choice at End of Life’ Bill. This Bill will protect physicians from criminal liability for prescribing a medication that will hasten a patient’s death, under certain conditions and given certain safeguards. The legislative regime is relatively clear, and its comprehensible provisions can be applauded. Still some ambiguity exists overall about the distinction between PAS and euthanasia, as evidenced by the following headline: ‘Vermont Assisted Suicide Bill: Vermont Gives Euthanasia the Green Light’. The legislation itself does not necessarily do a service to clarify these terms, in its reference to active euthanasia. In this blog post, I seek to clarify some of the legislative regime in Vermont and clarify some terminology around PAS and euthanasia. 

Vermont is the third State that has legally permitted PAS, and is the first one to do so by law directly. Oregon and Washington legalized PAS respectively in 1994 (confirmed in 2006) and 2008 after referenda. Montana allowed PAS by a court judgment in 2009, but no Bill has been enacted yet. Vermont’s Bill was crafted with the Oregon legislation in mind. Its current safeguards revolve around record keeping by the physician, its requirements that a patient needs to suffer a terminal illness and have less than six months to live, as well its requirements for a the written statement of a patient (next to two oral ones), and a concurring opinion from a second physician. These safeguards were a compromise to facilitate and speed up the process of the Bill. In 2016 these safeguards will be replaced, and PAS will be governed by professional practice standards, like in other areas of medicine (Provision 5292).    

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

Medical situations can instantly change. This can be for the better or for the worse:  A patient who consistently refused to eat, now suddenly decides to eat. A patient who is delirious or manic threatens a staff member at 11:50, but subsequently seems rational and reasonable when we arrive in his room 15 minutes later. A stroke patient who does not communicate or respond, and who is likely to develop into a permanent vegetative state (PVS), perks up, talks and leaves. A patient, who is on the mend, develops a fever, requires a rapid response and dies. 

The ethical issues, similarly, change instantly in these situations. It requires me, as a new clinical ethics, to constantly redefine my perspectives. Where we plan to discuss placement of a feeding tube, the patient’s mood alteration resolves issues around placement and resolves the ethical questions. Where we address concerns around a safe discharge, we find out that the patient’s mood changes at 12 o' clock, and awareness of this time frame allows for a safe discharge. Where have family meetings to discuss quality of life in a PVS, this discussion is no longer necessary as the patient can be discharged.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

Gamete retrieval after death or irreversible coma ought not to be counted among the many acceptable practices of assisted reproductive technology (ART) because the donor patient’s consent cannot be reasonably verified and there is no possibility to participate in childrearing activities. Although it is possible a case could arise where the patient leaves clear and convincing evidence of the wish to have gametes harvested following a devastating loss of brain function, I will argue that advance directives are still inadequate and decisions will necessarily default to family members who may have complicated feelings and agendas. In terms of intent, the absence of any ability to participate in childrearing should be taken into consideration when evaluating decisions about harvesting gametes from comatose or deceased patients, again placing the decision with the family members who must accept and accommodate these preferences.  Allowing such a practice affirms the irrelevance of participating in rearing one’s offspring, and this may be lead to a slippery slope of diminishing the importance of responsibility in childrearing activities. 

Advance directives provide some insight into what a patient may have wanted in terms of life sustaining treatment and perhaps allocation of organs and/or gametes. To harvest gametes from an individual who will not be able to affirm their intent to serve as donors for a partner may be morally uncomfortable for physicians. Performing a procedure to extend the reproductive liberty of a patient who will never have a role in any resulting child’s life may understandably challenge a provider’s beliefs about how far medicine ought to go in honoring patient or family requests. The role of surrogate decision makers for a patient who lacks capacity is to honor the spirit of advance directives, if not the exact specifications.  Honoring the autonomy of a patient, however; need not extend to the realm of unfulfilled life goals. A patient who stated they wished to donate organs would still have such a request reviewed and consent is sought from the family members in nearly all cases.  Beyond the consideration due the patient, we may also have an obligation to If  we trust the patient’s intent and permission to retrieve gametes after loss of consciousness, can we fully trust the recipients motives are not influenced by grief or secondary gain, such as disability benefit or estate distribution?

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

This blog post solicits for your opinion, so please stick with me. 

There are two prominent sad realities in my clinical ethics fellowship. The first is that many cases deal with end-of-life issues. The second is that there are many ‘lonely’ patients, who often die in the hospital ‘alone’. The two issues combined tend to raise some unfortunate but fascinating clinical PELSI (Policy, Ethics, Legal and Social Issues). One such issue is: Who should make medical decisions at a patient’s end-of-life when this patient lacks capacity and there is no surrogate? 

In the State of New York, we have the Family Health Care Decisions Act (FHCDA) that governs many of these issues, including end-of-life decisions in absence of a surrogate. (I will explain the legislative scheme below) However, this legislation does not solve all problems, as the written word leaves leeway for different interpretations and practices. One of these problems is related to decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, and can be phrased as: Who should be the second, independent concurring physician in such decisions, in cases where the patient lacks capacity and there is no surrogate?

Let me explain. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

As someone who has done clinical ethics consultations for many years I long ago reached the conclusion that many of the so-called ethical problems that we encounter during ethics consultations could be prevented if only a more constructive line of communication had been established from the beginning of the patient’s hospital stay. Let me specify just what kind of patients and families I have in mind, the kind of communication I am talking about and the type of intervention that is needed.

Let’s face it, most patients come to the hospital with an identifiable medical problem about which there is little controversy, so the physician can diagnose and treat with a predictable, usually favorable, outcome. These are not the cases for which we get called on to do ethics consultations, nor are they the cases that take excessive amounts of time and create significant emotional stress such as cases that involve conflicts. In the less common cases where serious conflicts between various parties emerge, we are usually dealing with patients who have more medical problems, which often involve the risk of dying. The patient often lacks capacity and is unable to speak his or her mind about the goals of care and how far to use aggressive medical interventions. This means that families or loved ones of the patient must speak for the patient, i.e. serve as surrogates, and communicate with physicians about care plan goals and the appropriateness of particular procedures such as CPR in the event of cardio-pulmonary arrest.  To say the least, this is a stressful role for families and loved ones.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

The issue of physician suicide has been on the public agenda in the United States for the past 25 years or more. Legitimate worries about medical overtreatment, unnecessary suffering and loss of dignity have motivated a growing number of Americans to consider this issue more favorably. People are rightly concerned about loosing control over what happens to them once they enter the hospital when the are very sick and risk dying. Instead of being at the mercy of technological forces beyond their control, free individuals want to have a say over how they make the final exit from life. The key factor, in my opinion, is more about self-control than it is about actually the strong desire to take a lethal dose of medications at the time of the patient’s choosing. But let’s be clear what we are talking about. 

Oregon was the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, which occurred in 1994 in the Death With Dignity Act. This law gives patients with capacity facing a clearly diagnosable terminal illness within 6 months or less to live the right to receive (and the right of the physician to prescribe) a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the expressed purpose of ending their lives at the time of their choosing. Because we have had many years to collect empirical data about the effects of this law, we can use Oregon as a case study. As of 2011, 935 people have had prescriptions and 596 have died from ingesting medications they received based on this law. For about 90% of these patients, the primary concern about end of life care was “loss of autonomy”, but “inability to make life enjoyable” and “loss of dignity” were also major concerns. Moreover, based on the data, there is no evidence of any kind of abuse to any particular segment of the population, as some feared might happen. In fact the utilization rate of hospice care is up.  Following Oregon, Washington and Montana also have legalized physician-assisted suicide and we will have to wait and see the data of these laws continue to yield generally positive results. But overall the data gathered so far supports physician-assisted suicide a beneficial service. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

Here is cardiac surgeon Christiaan Barnard's account of his conversation with Louis Washkansky just before he performed on him the first human heart transplant, in 1967:

"'We know you have a heart disease for which we can do nothing more. You have had all possible treatment, and you are getting no better. We can put a normal heart into you, after taking out your heart that's no longer any good, and there's a chance you can get back to normal life again.'

"'So they told me. So I'm ready to go ahead.'

"Washkansky said no more. His eyes remained on me but with no indication he wanted to know anything more.

"'Well, then ... goodbye,' I said.

"'Goodbye.'"

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit ourwebsite.

Tis the season for family vacations, and like others, our clan tries to incorporate visits with extended family into our routes or final destination. This year, I was able to spend some time with an almost 95 year old grandparent who had some strong views on what she wanted for end of life care. Now, keep in mind, this lady puts most of us to shame with her daily swims, daily reading of the Wall Street Journal, efficient home economics, and speed at calculating Cribbage points. I was struck by the progressive stances held by this wise woman, and was forced to recognize the real risk that her preferences could easily be overlooked in an emergent medical situation.

Sitting in the yoga studio at the assisted living center where she resides, I notice a rather substantial silver bracelet dangling from her left wrist. Unusual for a jewelry minimalist, I asked about it. It is a DNR bracelet. My bioethicist ears perk. Upon closer examination, I see the engraved words, “DO NOT RESCUSITATE” marking the surface.  “Many of us have them,” I am told. Explaining the pervasive concerns shared by her peer group that EMTs will perform CPR no matter what, the message is clear that in this cohort of older adults there is a fear that no matter how well documented and verbalized their preferences may be, these wishes may be overlooked. And this fear is not without merit. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

Historically, palliative care has not been associated with pediatrics. In western societies children are expected to outlive their parents, and we prefer to avoid the sad reality that kids do sometimes die. This social dismay could, in part, explain why the development of palliative care programs for children has lagged behind the adult programs. Not to be confused with Hospice, palliative care is a medical specialty which focuses on symptom management for patients with serious, often life threatening, illnesses. Admission to most Hospice programs requires a six month maximum life expectancy, whereas palliative care may be offered alongside curative treatments to alleviate burdensome side effects and symptoms. In the US, the passage of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 has improved access to end of life care for children because the legislation permits concurrent coverage of medical treatment and Hospice services. Though a significant step forward, gaps in service may remain because children can live longer with serious illnesses and not meet the six month life expectancy criteria required for admission to a Hospice program. A better prognosis ironically leaves them without access to Hospice’s aggressive symptom management and compassionate, holistic care model. Pediatric palliative care services are emerging to meet the needs of children who have life limiting conditions, but are not expected to die in six months or less. Perhaps the most important feature is that palliative service can be provided alongside treatments for serious illnesses with very good prognoses. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

Does the case for terminal sedation actually weaken the case against physician-assisted suicide?

Terminal sedation, more clinically referred to as "palliative sedation," is a legally sanctioned alternative to physician-assisted suicide, a last resort in palliative treatment. It involves inducing and maintaining unconsciousness in a terminally ill patient until the patient dies, and is often accompanied by withholding or withdrawing medical feeding and hydration.

For example, if, in my advanced cancer, I experience intolerable pain, delirium, dyspnea or distress, to alleviate these unmanageable symptoms I let my physician sedate me into unconsciousness until I die. Sort of like undergoing anesthesia before surgery, without waking up.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.