Hospice Nurse Ethics and Institutional Policies Toward Medical Aid in Dying.

ABSTRACT: A significant number of hospices in U.S. jurisdictions where medical aid in dying is legal have implemented policies that require nurses to leave the room when a patient ingests aid-in-dying medication. Two questions with ethical implications arise from these policies: (1) Is it ethically supportable for a hospice to require that staff leave the room while a patient ingests aid-in-dying medication? and (2) Does this requirement compromise the nurse's professional commitment to the patient and family?This article reviews the origins of this common policy, as well as nursing codes of ethics and professional organization policy statements as they relate to nursing commitments to patients. It finds that an institutional policy requiring nurses to leave the room while a patient ingests aid-in-dying medication risks violating professional nursing standards, reinforces stigma regarding medical aid in dying, and potentially abandons patients and loved ones at a critical time in their passage toward a desired and legal death. The authors describe a case that depicts these three potential risks, concluding that even if such policies are not legally prohibited by state aid-in-dying statutes, hospices should eliminate them or at least be transparent about the practice and its rationale before accepting patients who request medical aid in dying.

Neurologic Diseases and Medical Aid in Dying: Aid-in-Dying Laws Create an Underclass of Patients Based on Disability.

Terminally ill patients in 10 states plus Washington, D.C. have the right to take prescribed medications to end their lives (medical aid in dying). But otherwise-eligible patients with neuromuscular disabilities (ALS and other illnesses) are excluded if they are physically unable to "self-administer" the medications without assistance. This exclusion is incompatible with disability rights laws that mandate assistance to provide equal access to health care. This contradiction between aid-in-dying laws and disability rights laws can force patients and clinicians into violating one or the other, potentially creating an underclass of patients denied medical care that is available to those with other (less physically disabling) terminal illnesses. The immediacy of this issue is demonstrated by a lawsuit in Federal court filed in August 2021, requesting assistance in self-administration for terminally ill patients with neuromuscular diseases. This paper discusses the background of this conflict, the ethical issues at the heart of the dilemma, and recommends potential remedies.

Ending One's Life in Advance.

If you developed Alzheimer disease, would you want to go all the way to the end of what might be a decade-long course? Some would; some wouldn't. Options open to those who choose to die sooner are often inadequate. Do-not-resuscitate orders and advance directives depend on others' cooperation. Preemptive suicide may mean giving up years of life one would count as good. Do-it-yourself methods can fail. What we now ask of family and clinicians caring for persons with dementia, and of patients given no better option than to go on with lives they may not want, is unacceptable. To explore how one might better control one's own dying and avoid burdening others with overwhelming care and morally painful choices, we propose a thought experiment: an advance directive implant that would enable persons with early dementia, while competent, to arrange their own deaths without the subsequent intervention of anyone else.

Continuous sedation until death: moral justifications of physicians and nurses--a content analysis of opinion pieces.

Continuous sedation until death (CSD), the act of reducing or removing the consciousness of an incurably ill patient until death, often provokes medical-ethical discussions in the opinion sections of medical and nursing journals. A content analysis of opinion pieces in medical and nursing literature was conducted to examine how clinicians define and describe CSD, and how they justify this practice morally. Most publications were written by physicians and published in palliative or general medicine journals. Terminal Sedation and Palliative Sedation are the most frequently used terms to describe CSD. Seventeen definitions with varying content were identified. CSD was found to be morally justified in 73% of the publications using justifications such as Last Resort, Doctrine of Double Effect, Sanctity of Life, Autonomy, and Proportionality. The debate over CSD in the opinion sections of medical and nursing journals lacks uniform terms and definitions, and is profoundly marked by 'charged language', aiming at realizing agreement in attitude towards CSD. Not all of the moral justifications found are equally straightforward. To enable a more effective debate, the terms, definitions and justifications for CSD need to be further clarified.

The irony of supporting physician-assisted suicide: a personal account.

Under other circumstances, I would have written an academic paper rehearsing the arguments for and against legalization of physician-assisted suicide: autonomy and the avoidance of pain and suffering on the pro side, the wrongness of killing, the integrity of the medical profession, and the risk of abuse, the "slippery slope," on the con side. I've always supported the pro side. What this paper is, however, is a highly personal account of the challenges to my thinking about right-to-die issues. In November 2008, my husband suffered a C2/C3 spinal cord injury in a bicycle collision, leaving him ventilator-dependent, almost completely paralyzed, and in the hospital--but fully alert and profoundly self-reflective. What if he wanted to die? This paper draws from two multimedia presentations--file:///Users/margaretbattin/Documents/BROOKE'S%20ACCIDENT/The%20Salt%20Lake%20Tribune%20%7C%20Multimedia:%20Metamorphosis.webarchive and file:///Users/margaretbattin/Documents/BROOKE'S%20ACCIDENT/The%20Salt%20Lake%20Tribune%20%7C%20Multimedia:%20Learning%20to%20live%20again.webarchive--and personal material concerning quality of life (he'd rank at the bottom on the SF-36 and similar scales) and concerning autonomy (his own accounts, verbatim). This is a detailed portrait of a man whose life involves extraordinary suffering but also luminous experience some of the time. It only makes the question harder: What if he wanted to die?

Age rationing and the just distribution of health care: is there a duty to die?

KIE: The author analyzes the argument that a policy involving distributive justice in the allocation of scarce health care resources, based on the strategy of rational self interest maximation under a veil of ignorance (Rawls/Daniels), would result in an age rationing system of voluntary, socially encouraged, direct termination of the lives of the elderly rather than their medical abandonment. She maintains that such a policy would be a fair response only in a situation of substantial scarcity of resources that cannot be relieved without introducing greater injustices. Battin suggests that some of the current pressure on resources could be reduced by pruning waste and the expenses attributable to paternalistic imposition of treatment and to the practice of defensive medicine. She also advocates reconsideration of societal priorities assigned to various social goods.^ieng