SAFEGUARD
FOR LIFE-ENDING DECISIONS
KEEPING
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, THE MEDIA,
&
OTHER STRANGERS OUT OF THE LOOP
Planning for death is a very private process
conducted by the patient and his or her close relatives, doctors,
& other advisors chosen by the patient and/or the proxies.
All safeguards found appropriate for each patient define exactly
which
persons
will be involved in the death-planning
process.
All other
persons, organizations, agencies of
government, etc.
are explicitly excluded
from the process.
The only exception to this exclusion is the prosecuting
authority.
If some crime might
have been committed
disguised as making legally-permitted end-of-life choices,
then the prosecutor has the authority to investigate fully
—without
any limitation concerning who may be questioned
or what documents may be examined.
In other words, each and every individual who has
access
to the facts and documents for planning a particular death
has an explicit reason to be
involved.
When clergy-persons and ethical consultants are invited to participate,
they have been explicitly
authorized by the patient and/or the proxies.
No self-appointed guardians
of the dying
have any right to interfere in the process of planning for death.
The formulation of how the various safeguards should
be fulfilled
is open to everyone, for example on the website you are reading.
This is the meaning of "public
safeguards".
However, the documents showing the fulfillment of safeguards
for a specific death are private
information,
available only to those who have a legitimate right to know.
The same laws that apply to medical records
apply to death-planning records.
All such records are not
open to public examination.
They are not available to
the news media.
They are not available to
any public official,
with the exception of the prosecutor, as noted above.
The reasons for keeping all strangers out of the
loop are self-evident.
But it will do no harm to make these reasons explicit here.
Individuals
who see themselves as guardians of the dying
have their own ethical agendas,
which may or may not be the same as the ethical principles of the
patient.
If the death-planning records were public information,
then such strangers would be involved full-time
in examining records and attempting to intervene
in those deaths they believe would be inappropriate.
The news
media should not
have access to the
death-planning process
because that would only inflame passions on all sides.
It would encourage people who know only what is reported in the media
to form opinions about what should be done in the cases
reported.
This would enormously complicate what should be
a private
process of making end-of-life medical decisions.
Government
officials should be excluded from the
death-planning process
because they also apply preconceived principles of right
and wrong.
And they might try to use the various powers that come with their
offices
to influence the choices being made by the duly-authorized deciders.
A major fear based on the Nazi example
is that government
power will be misused to put
certain persons to death
without regard to what is best for the patient
and without regard to what the proxies decide.
Government bureaucrats must never become involved
in deciding who lives
and who dies.
The 2005 example of Terri Schiavo in Florida
shows what can happen
when government officials interfere in private medical
decisions.
The governor of Florida, the Florida legislature,
and then the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President all took various
actions
attempting to make medical decisions for
Terri Schiavo.
Later her autopsy proved that she was in a persistent vegetative state.
Millions of people were inflamed by reports in the
mass media.
And many people took sides without knowing all the medical facts.
Such strangers should never become involved in private medical
decisions.
Barring government officials from attempting to
make medical decisions
—including
life-ending decisions—will
prevent similar
controversies.
If additional laws are needed to protect patient privacy,
let them be enacted at all appropriate levels of government.
Government officials should not
only be
prohibited from asking for
private medical records,
but perhaps they should be punished
for any actions they take
that are intended to influence private medical decisions.
HOW EXCLUDING STRANGERS
FROM THE DEATH-PLANNING PROCESS
DISCOURAGES
UNREASONABLY-PROLONGED DYING
AND PREVENTS
GOVERNMENT-ORDERED DEATH.
Keeping strangers out of any process for making
medical choices
will simplify every such effort to reach a reasonable decision.
The persons legitimately
involved in the decision-making process
will not have to fear that their choices will be reviewed by strangers,
who might have some ethical or political agendas
at odds with the basic purpose of making medical decisions.
In totalitarian countries where there might be a
legitimate fear
that the dictator will order some 'useless eaters' put to death,
keeping all medical records out of government hands
will prevent bureaucrats from choosing who will die.
In the USA prohibiting and punishing the
efforts of government officials
to interfere in the private medical decisions of any family
will prevent repeats of the Terri Schiavo conflict.
In the United States the only officials who might review
any case
are the prosecutors and the
courts.
And these prosecutors and judges can only become involved
if any medical decision (including life-ending decisions)
might violate any applicable law then in force.
Keeping all strangers out of the decision-making
loop
will permit patients and their families
to make wise end-of-life medical decisions with complete privacy.
Created March 9,
2007; revised 2-14-2008; 8-28-2008; 9-11-2008; 11-11-2008;
2-12-2010;
5-20-2010; 11-10-2011;
1-12-2012; 1-28-2012; 2-22-2012; 3-22-2012;
8-1-2012; 8-19-2012; 10-18-2012;
5-19-2013; 6-26-2013; 7-23-2014; 11-30-2014; 5-6-2015;
5-1-2017; 1-5-2018; 10-12-2018; 5-21-2020;
Go to the Catalog
of Safeguards for Life-Ending
Decisions
Go to the list of 26
recommended
safeguards.
The above safeguard is not
one of these named safeguards,
but keeping strangers out of the loop is included in several of them.