PRESERVING GOOD DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONS:
WILL MY DOCTOR DECIDE TO KILL ME?


    Physicians often oppose the 'right-to-die'
because they fear that allowing doctors
to recommend death
will harm the
trust between doctors and their patients.

    Such fears are not well-grounded in reality,
since most doctors are committed to the well-being of their patients.
But some patients already have
an irrational fear of doctors.
And permitting doctors to take any part in life-ending decisions
might seem to
corrupt the mission of the healing professions.

    Many patients are already reluctant to consult doctors.
Thus, adding the new worry that
doctors might recommend death
if a particular case becomes too difficult or troublesome
might
not improve doctor-patient relations.

    When we consult doctors, we want to know in advance
that our doctors will do everything reasonable
to save us from death.
If we fear doctors as people
who might provide death pills,
we might want to stay away from such 'executioners'.

    This confusion is not helped by advocates of the right-to-die
when they refer to life-ending chemical as "medication".
How are we supposed to react when offered pills?

    Even if most such fears are completely groundless,
we would trust our doctors somewhat more
if we knew that they were
not considering death as an option.

    The doctor will consult with everyone legitimately involved
before agreeing to participate in a chosen death.
But even thinking that death might be recommended by the doctor
can turn us away from the healing services of the physician.

    If the right-to-die is
not associated with the healing professions,
if, for example,
someone else could provide gentle poison,
then the patients would not be confused about the role of their doctors.
They would know that their doctors are completely committed to curing.
See the first safeguard linked below.

    And if a doctor decides that
cure is no longer possible,
he or she might
refer the patient to another kind of professional,
who will help to clarify the end-of-life options.
This would keep the doctor
always associated with healing
and allow
others to take over the care of the patient
when choosing death might be the best option.




SAFEGUARDS FOR GOOD DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONS

    When we consider what safeguards to include in new right-to-die laws,
we should try to keep the doctor-patient relationship
as
meaningful and positive as possible.

    The following 20 specific procedures
should help to ensure that wise decisions are made.
The doctors will provide medical information and recommendations.
But the patient and/or the proxies
will be responsible for making all end-of-life choices.

    These safeguards are arranged beginning with the most powerful.
The
blue title links to a complete explanation of that safeguard.
The
red comments explain how that procedure
will enhance good doctor-patient relationships.



SPECIFICALLY-LICENSED TERMINAL-CARE PHYSICIAN
             AGREES TO PROVIDE LIFE-ENDING CHEMICALS

    Good doctor-patient relations will be preserved
between all regular doctors and their patients
because
only specifically-licensed physicians
will be authorized to provide life-ending chemicals.
Patients will know when they have been referred
to these specially-licensed terminal-care physicians.
These special doctors are licensed to provide lethal chemicals
for patients who choose this pathway towards death.

PHYSICIAN'S STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

    When the physician who has primarily responsibility for the patient
issues his or her written statement of condition and prognosis,
he or she might mention medical treatments still worth trying.
Everyone who reads such a statement will note
that the best interests of the patient are uppermost.

INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS

    When another physician makes an independent assessment,
once again all concerned will know
that good doctor-patient relations are being maintained.
The contents of all such statements
will show that these doctors are
not acting as executioners.
And this second professional evaluation
is intended to catch any mistakes coming from the first physician.
If the first physician has recommended death prematurely,
then the second physician will raise appropriate doubts.

HOSPITAL OR HOSPICE ENROLLMENT

    When the patient is being cared for in a hospital or hospice,
several professionals and laypersons are participating in the care,
even if everyone knows that the patient is dying.
In such settings of patient-care,
doctors will not choose death capriciously or prematurely.

INFORMATION ABOUT PALLIATIVE CARE
            AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO DEATH

    When the patient is given everything he or she needs to know
about palliative care and other alternatives to immediate death,
there will be less worry that the providers
are pushing for death prematurely.

PALLIATIVE CARE TRIAL

    When some actual methods of palliative care are applied,
everyone concerned will see how well the patient is being cared for
and that there is no premature decision to 'pull the plug'.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSULTANT EVALUATES
           THE PATIENT'S ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS

    When a professional psychologist or psychiatrist
evaluates a patient and his or her plans for death,
it should be clear to everyone that maximum care is being observed
to do what is best for the patient.
Medical and psychological professionals are cooperating
in helping the patient to choose the best pathway towards death,
even if they recommend postponing death as long as reasonable.

ADVANCE DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE

    The patient creates an Advance Directive for Medical Care.
By doing so, the patient provides the most important input
for making all future medical decisions.
The terminal-care physician follows the
patient's settled values,
rather than applying abstract, generic medical ethics to all cases.

REQUESTS FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT

    When the patient himself or herself
has decided that
death now is better than death later,
this puts the patient's wishes ahead of the doctor's opinions.
Everyone who reads a written request for death from the patient
will be able to ask whether this is a wise decision
actually coming from the patient.

INFORMED CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT

   Open discussion between the doctor and the patient
results in a written document spelling out what the patient wants.
When fully-informed consent is obtained,
the doctor is not just following his own rules of thumb.
Especially with regard to all decisions leading to death,
care must be exercised to make sure
that the patient's consent is based on full information.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PATIENT
            TO RESCIND OR POSTPONE THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION

    If the patient has already made a life-ending decision,
that person should be given several opportunities
to change his or her mind about the choice and timing of death.
Each such opportunity shows that the
doctor is not deciding:
The patient is always in charge.

THE PATIENT MUST BE CONSCIOUS AND ABLE TO ACHIEVE DEATH

    And if the patient himself or herself takes the life-ending actions,
then it is certain that
the doctor is not putting the patient to death.
If the patient takes the lethal chemicals, for example,
the doctor is not killing the patient.
The patient is freely and wisely choosing a timely death.
The other safeguards help to ensure this is not an irrational suicide.

ETHICS COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION

    When an ethics committee has reviewed the plans for death,
this is further protection for the patient,
preserving good doctor-patient relations
and making sure that
there is no inappropriate pressure
from the doctor that might lead to a premature death.
Even the fact that
there will be a review by an ethics committee
will give the doctor pause about recommending death
until death is obviously the best remaining alternative.
Several minds will reach a better decision than just one mind.

STATEMENTS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS
            AFFIRMING OR QUESTIONING CHOOSING DEATH

    When family members provide their written opinions,
they show their cooperation in whatever end-of-life process
is unfolding for their loved one.
Family members will usually not cooperate in any premature death.

A MEMBER OF THE CLERGY
            APPROVES OR QUESTIONS CHOOSING DEATH

    When a member of the clergy approves the planned death,
only a few people would continue to feel
that something harmful is being visited upon the patient.
Clergy-persons bring their own perspectives to end-of-life decisions.

RELIGIOUS OR OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES
            APPLIED TO THIS LIFE-ENDING DECISION

    And this religious advisor might prepare a document
explicitly stating how the appropriate moral or religious principles
apply to the life-ending decision now being considered.

REVIEW BY THE PROSECUTOR (OR OTHER LAWYER)
            BEFORE THE DEATH TAKES PLACE

    When everyone knows that the prosecutor has reviewed the case
and found nothing that warrants further investigation,
this should be good evidence for everyone
that proper safeguards have been fulfilled
and that the planned death will not be premature.

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CAUSING PREMATURE DEATH

    And if someone has broken the law,
then the appropriate penalties should be applied.
Patients who know such safeguards are in place
will have less reason to fear that they might be harmed in any way.
The civil and criminal laws are the patients' safeguards
against the very rare 'angels of death' among licensed physicians.

COMPLETE RECORDING AND SHARING
            OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND OPINIONS

    Also, during the process of creating the death-planning record,
several people will have numerous opportunities to raise doubts
whenever any reasons to question the decisions are warranted.
Everyone involved knows that their actions and opinions
are being placed into a permanent record of the patient's last year of life.

THE DEATH-PLANNING COORDINATOR ORGANIZES THE SAFEGUARDS

    And the final summary of the death-planning process
will be conclusive proof that all appropriate safeguards were fulfilled.
Good doctor-patient relations have been preserved.
This record will show that there is no reason to suspect
that the doctor has pushed the patient towards death
before the best time for that patient to die.


   
If these 20 safeguards do not seem sufficient
to preserve good doctor-patient relations
and to reassure everyone that the physician is not causing premature death,
there are a dozen more listed in the complete catalog of safeguards:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/SG-CAT.html
Each of these descriptions contains a few paragraphs
explaining how that safeguard will discourage
all forms of choosing a premature death.



Created March 22, 2007; revised 4-12-2007; 9-26-2007; 7-16-2008; 11-2-2008;
1-29-2009; 3-26-2009; 3-30-2009; 1-30-2010; 5-21-2010;
2-25-2011; 12-29-2011; 1-27-2012; 2-21-2012; 3-28-2012; 7-18-2012; 9-12-2012;
5-3-2013; 6-21-2013; 7-17-2014; 10-10-2014; 7-2-2015; 12-1-2017; 6-28-2018; 8-30-2018; 5-27-2020;


Keeping doctors associated with
curing rather than killing
by using these 20 safeguards for life-ending decisions
has now become Chapter 12 of
How to Die: Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
"Preserving Good Doctor-Patient Relations: Will My Doctor Decide to Kill Me?"




Go to other dangers, mistakes, & abuses of the right-to-die.




Go to the beginning of this website
James Leonard Park—Free Library