Four Medical Methods of Managing Dying
Original Title: FOUR LEGAL METHODS OF CHOOSING DEATH
{alternate title: Legal Ways to End Our Lives}
1.
Increasing
Pain Medication: Comfort-Care Only.
2. Inducing
Terminal Coma.
3. Withdrawing
Curative Treatments and Life-Supports.
4. Voluntary
Dehydration.
A. SUMMARY OF THESE FOUR METHODS OF MANAGING DYING
B. HOW
MANY DEATHS ARE ACHIEVED BY EACH METHOD?
E. LAWS THAT EXPLICITLY
AUTHORIZE
THESE METHODS
OF MANAGING DYING
As we approach the end of our lives,
we will probably be receiving
various forms of medical care.
Our specific medical problems and
the care selected to treat them
will help to decide which
pathways towards death would be best for us.
Are we already
receiving medication for pain?
Are we already lying in a hospital
bed?
What treatments and life-supports are keeping us alive?
Would
it be easy to give up food and water?
Once
we know we are dying, we can cooperate with our doctors
to select
specific actions that will bring
death as gently as possible.
The following four methods of managing dying
can help to bring a
peaceful death at the best time.
These four kinds of medical behavior are
all completely legal
everywhere in the United States of
America
and also in most other advanced countries of the
world.
And even where the status of these end-of-life
choices is uncertain,
moral thinking is moving toward affirming
these options.
2.
Inducing Terminal Coma.
Another way to use drugs is to choose
medication
to keep
the patient completely unconscious until death occurs.
This
method would be appropriate when the burdens
of the dying process
exceed the benefits
of being awake.
In
the most extreme situations, every moment of conscious life
might
be meaningless suffering and torment.
If there is no
hope of recovery
from the medical problem
that will ultimately cause our
deaths,
and if every conscious moment between now and death would be agony,
then the truly compassionate practice would be
to
keep us
asleep
until the natural process of dying is over.
And as noted in the first option—comfort-care-only—
the drugs themselves might shorten
the process of dying.
Inducing a terminal coma is clearly a decision
that acknowledges that death is
coming within a few days at most.
And the proxies for the dying
person have decided
that it is better to keep the patient
unconscious
than for the patient to have even a few more moments
of suffering.
Also, a timely
death
might mean earlier
rather than later
under these circumstances.
Once
terminal coma has been chosen as the means of dying,
then
other medical decisions also follow logically:
Unconscious
patients can no longer eat or drink normally.
And there is no
point in continuing to give nutrition and fluids by tubes
because
that would only prolong the process of dying.
Also, if any other
life-support systems are being used,
they can be discontinued when
terminal sedation begins.
Or the terminal coma might begin
before the life-supports are
disconnected,
especially if there might be suffering and distress
as a result of removing
the life-supports.
The family and
friends can even begin their process of grieving,
since it is
known with
absolute certainty
that death is coming.
They can even begin the orderly process
of
arranging the funeral or memorial service
since the approximate
day of death will be known in advance.
Terminal coma might seem an unnecessary step in some
cases.
Occasionally the family will ask why the process must take
so long,
since everyone knows that death is coming in a week or
less.
And if and when new laws allow merciful death
—defined
as purposely
ending the life of another
when
proper safeguards have been fulfilled—
then a lethal
injection
could bring death immediately
---instead of inducing a terminal coma
and waiting for the natural end.
How soon will such
means of merciful death be permitted?
Each legal jurisdiction on
the Earth must change its laws
to make such forms of chosen death legal options.
Another
chapter of this book explores terminal sedation more completely:
Induced
Terminal Coma: Dying in Your Sleep—Guaranteed
3.
Withdrawing Curative Treatments and Life-Supports.
Modern science has created an ever-increasing array
of technical
means to support life:
heart-lung machines, mechanical
respirators,
drugs to control every natural process of the
body,
means of providing fluids and nutrition,
ways
of clearing toxins from the blood, etc.
And we can expect further advances in medical technology.
In fact, if we end our days in a hospital,
it is very likely that
we will have some
form of life-support.
And
in the developed world, most deaths now occur in
hospitals.
Thus, one legal way to end our lives
is to turn
off the machines
and disconnect
the tubes.
Such a life-ending decision should not be taken easily or
lightly.
Very careful consideration of all possible means of
recovery
should be explored before we give up hope for a cure
and
decide to end medical treatments and disconnect the
life-supports.
Because receiving medical
care and being connected to life-supports
usually means that we
are in a hospital,
there are already good safeguards in place to
make sure
that withdrawal does not take place accidentally or
casually.
A series of medical cures will already have been
attempted.
And new treatments can always be proposed.
But will
they really save us from death?
Eventually in almost every case,
there comes a time to consider
ending
all medical treatment
and turning
off the machines.
Doctors will be the main technical advisors for such decisions.
But
according to law as practiced in the Western world,
the decision
to end treatments and life-supports belongs to the patient.
If
the patient is no longer able to make medical decisions,
then the
duly-authorized proxies
for the patient
must decide to withdraw curative treatments and
life-supports.
When one of the
life-supports was a respirator,
death will follow almost
immediately
when the breathing-machine is disconnected.
The
same is true if machines were performing the functions of the
heart.
Without blood circulating, death will come
immediately.
When the main form of
life-support was a feeding-tube,
then it might take a few days for
the body to shut down.
And if there is any possibility of
suffering
due to disconnecting any machines, tubes, or other
life-supports,
such suffering can be prevented by appropriate
drugs.
If necessary, the
patient can be kept completely unconscious
during
what remains of the dying process.
This might be called "an induced terminal coma"
if it is going to take any significant time for
death to occur.
Disconnecting
life-support systems used to be controversial
because it was too
active a
means of allowing death to occur.
But modern thinking about
life-support systems
allows the decision to discontinue (or
never start) any life-supports.
Another worry that has mostly passed from medical practice
regards
the question of beginning
life-supports:
Once a patient has been attached to
life-supports,
is
it morally wrong to disconnect the machines?
The
universal answer in medical ethics now is that
beginning to use
any system of life-supports
does not
require that they remain in place until death.
Thus, if we are asked to authorize some form of life-support,
we
should not worry that we will be prevented
from disconnecting the
tubes and machines later if they do no good.
In many cases, it is
wise to use life-support systems
as a temporary
measure
while specific cures are attempted.
But when all means of saving
us from death have been tried,
then it might be appropriate to
disconnect the life-support systems
and "let nature take
its course".
Life-support
systems were originally invented to sustain life
while the body of
an accident victim, for instance,
was given medical care so that
he or she could return to normal life.
Also life-support systems
maintain vital functions during surgery.
But
life-supports have become the standard
equipment of dying.
Dying
patients are routinely put into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU),
where
they are connected to several different machines at once.
But when
it becomes clear that recovery is not going to happen,
and/or if
the patient finds the burdens of life-supports intolerable,
then
the machines are turned off and death takes place.
In fact, disconnecting life-support systems has become so
routine
that this action is seldom mentioned on
death-certificates.
The
death is recorded as caused by the underlying disease or
condition
that put the patient into the hospital in the first
place.
Disconnecting the life-supports was simply the last step in
medical care.
More
discussion of terminating life-supports appears here:
Pulling
the Plug: A Paradigm for Life-Ending
Decisions
4.
Voluntary Dehydration.
The first three medical methods of managing dying
—increasing
pain-medication, inducing terminal coma,
& ending medical
treatments and life-supports—
all include actions by
physicians, usually in hospitals.
But giving up eating and
drinking is a legal method of dying
anyone
can use anywhere.
When we have carefully determined that death
is the best
option,
we can achieve a peaceful death simply by giving up fluids
and food.
Good palliative care can
limit the various kinds of distress
associated with dying by
dehydration.
The
advantages of this pathway towards death are explored in
VDD:
Why
Giving Up Water is Better than Other Means of Voluntary
Death
Another
chapter explores 26 suggested safeguards:
VOLUNTARY
DEATH BY DEHYDRATION:
Safeguards to Make Sure it is a Wise
Choice
And a
website has been established called:
Voluntary
Death by
Dehydration—Questions &
Answers
B. HOW
MANY DEATHS ARE ACHIEVED BY EACH METHOD?
About half of all deaths
in countries with advanced medical systems
probably use some
combination of these methods of managing dying.
If we back up to view ourselves from the distance of the moon,
we
notice that all human beings die—100%.
So, how many deaths
follow the pathways described above?
No matter how we classify the
pathways towards death,
all pathways taken together must total 100%.
In those places on Earth that have advanced medical systems,
most
deaths take place under
some kind of medical care
—in
a hospital, nursing home, hospice, etc.
Unexpected, accidental, or violent deaths take place elsewhere.
Of
all deaths, such sudden deaths probably amount to 20%.
Thus, about
80% of all deaths take place under medical care.
0. Deaths with
Maximum Medical Care: 25-30% of all deaths.
Many deaths take place under medical treatment.
These patients are 'treated-to-death'.
All of their
medical care is based on the hope that they will recover.
Even
when that hope of recovery is disappearlingly small,
medical
treatments are intended to save the patient from death.
But
the patient dies no matter what methods are used.
In the surgical
suite or the intensive care unit,
the doctors are still working
to save their patient
when the patient dies despite their best
efforts.
1. Comfort-Care-Only:
20-25% of all deaths.
The purpose of pain-medication is always to reduce suffering.
But there
comes a point in the downward journey towards death
when the
pain-management turns from recovery towards comfort.
The doctors stop worrying about the side-effects of the
pain-killers.
If the patient will not return to ordinary
life,
why worry about drug-dependence or 'addiction'
---or even
about suppressing vital functions
such as heart-beat and
breathing?
Careful doctors will discuss
this change of purpose for the drugs
with the patient if the
patient can still deal with such medical matters.
If the patient
is unconscious, the proxies decide.
Here the decision to increase
pain-killers is a life-ending decision.
The purpose of
medical care shifts from cure to comfort.
Under comfort-care, the patient will be awake
part of the
time.
And the patient might be able to eat and drink
normally.
Ordinary standards for amounts of drugs no
longer apply.
Higher doses might shorten the process of dying.
But to protect the
professional status of the doctors and nurses,
the new dose will
not cause immediate death.
An earlier death might be expected but
not intended.
Of course, such subtle lines are difficult to draw.
In
retrospect, will it be correct to say that the timing of this
death
was affected by the amounts of pain-killing drugs that
were used?
Where such medical choices are acknowledged,
the
recorded cause of death will be the underlying disease or
condition.
And the process of dying was shortened by the
pain-killing drugs.
2.
Induced Terminal Coma: 5-10% of all deaths.
The doctor recommends keeping the patient unconscious
for the rest
of the patient's natural life—until death comes.
When terminal coma is decided by the doctors and the
proxies,
there is no point in continuing food and fluids,
since
these will only prolong the process of dying.
Inducing
terminal coma is clearly a life-ending decision.
When
this process begins, there is no uncertainly about the outcome:
The
patient will be dead within a few days.
The doctor can
predict how long dying will take,
which depends on the condition
of the patient's body
when terminal coma begins and
life-supports are withdrawn.
3. Ending
Treatments and Life-Supports: 10-15% of all deaths.
Many deaths in hospitals take place when it becomes clear
that
medical treatment is not going to prevent death.
The life-supports
in place are only going to prolong the dying-process.
With the permission of the proxies (perhaps even the
patient),
all of the medical means of curing are discontinued.
There will be no more curative medical procedures.
When
life-supports are in use, including drugs to maintain vital
functions,
they are all discontinued at the same time.
However,
any means of comfort-care can be continued
if the patient
might have even a moment of conscious suffering.
The life-supports withdrawn might be providing oxygen or
nutrition.
If the patient was supported by a respirator, death
will follow immediately.
If the patient was maintained by tubes
providing food and water,
dying might take a week or ten days.
The doctor should explain how long it will take for the
patient to die
after withdrawal of all medical treatments and
life-supports.
The family can begin planning for a funeral or
memorial service
as well as all
other after-death events
because the likely date of death will be
known.
Withdrawing all medical treatments and life-supports
is definitely a life-ending decision.
4. Other Chosen
Deaths: 5% of all deaths.
When the patient is not being supported by any kind of
life-supports
that can be disconnected or turned off,
then the
patient, the proxies, & the doctors can all agree
(if the
patient is not going to recover),
that the best pathway towards
death is to give up all fluids.
This death by
dehydration when used alone
probably accounts for 1% of all
deaths.
E. LAWS
THAT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZE
THESE METHODS
OF MANAGING DYING
Sometimes these long-acknowledged principles of medical care
are
explicitly embodied in the laws of the various states of the USA
and
in the national laws of other countries.
The modifications of
some laws
might help other jurisdictions to make wise
revisions,
acknowledging these four medical methods of
managing dying
are completely legal and moral.
drafted
10-13-2005; revised 10-24-2005; 11-25-2005; 8-10-2006;
2-19-2008;
3-3-2008; 3-4-2008; 7-31-2008; 11-21-2008; 6-5-2009; 8-17-2009;
3-27-2010; 3-11-2011; 11-11-2011;
1-6-2012; 2-1-2012;
2-24-2012; 3-3-2012; 3-8-2012; 3-10-2012; 3-18-2012; 4-12-2012;
7-28-2012; 8-25-2012; 11-6-2012;
1-3-2013; 5-30-2013;
6-9-2013; 7-16-2013; 10-19-2013;
3-19-2014; 7-31-2014;12-23-2014;
4-2-2015; 7-1-2015; 7-10-2015;
2-11-2016; 5-6-2016; 9-16-2016; 6-14-2017; 8-3-2017; 3-23-2018;
11-17-2018; 1-17-2020;
Another
approach—by Norman L. Cantor—
to
the question of shortening the process of dying is entitled:
"On
Hastening Death Without Violating Legal and Moral Prohibitions"
This
links to the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,
Volume 37, number
2, 2006, pages 101-125.
The
article is also available at other locations on the Internet.
Law
professor Cantor summarizes the law with respect to
the following
4 legal and moral methods of managing dying:
1.
ending life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT);
2.
voluntary stopping eating and drinking (VSED);
3.
terminal sedation (TERSE),
often with ending life-supports and/or
voluntary dehydration;
4.
pain-relief that probably shortens the process of dying.
Here
are a few related chapters:
Comfort-Care
Only:
Easing
the Passage into Death
Induced
Terminal Coma:
Dying in Your Sleep—Guaranteed
Pulling
the Plug:
A Paradigm for Life-Ending Decisions
VDD:
Why
Giving Up Water is Better than Other Means of Voluntary Death
Voluntary
Death by Dehydration:
Safeguards to Make Sure it is a Wise Choice
Gentle
Poison:
The Demand for Quick Death
Losing
the Marks of Personhood:
Discussing Degrees of Mental Decline
Advance
Directives for Medical Care:
24 Important Questions to Answer
Fifteen
Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions
Will
this Death be an "Irrational Suicide" or a "Voluntary
Death"?
Will
this Death be a "Mercy-Killing" or a "Merciful Death"?
Depressed?
Don't
Kill Yourself!
Further
reading:
Best
Books on Voluntary Death
Best
Books on Preparing for Death
Medical
Methods of Managing Dying
First Books on Voluntary Death by Dehydration
Books
on Helping Patients to Die
Books
Supporting the Right-to-Die
Books
Opposing the Right-to-Die
Go to the Right-to-Die Portal.
Return to the DEATH page.
Go to the Medical Ethics index page.
Go to
on-line
essays by James Park,
organized into 10 subject-areas.
Go to
the beginning of this website
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library