Health Care Law and Ethics

Site com o texto completo da monografia dos autores que aborda, entre outros assuntos, os deveres em relação ao tratamento de pacientes, a responsabilidade na imperícia, o direito de morrer, o transplante de órgãos, os direitos de reprodução, a lei nacional da saúde; traz notícias recentes sobre a matéria e links para sites relacionados.

The Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999: a serious threat to palliative care.

Recent educational efforts in the US medical community have begun to address the critical issue of palliative care for terminally ill patients. However, a newly introduced bill in Congress, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (PRPA), could dramatically hinder these efforts if enacted. The act criminally punishes the use of controlled substances to cause-or assist in causing-a patient's death. The primary purposes of PRPA are to override the physician-assisted suicide law currently in effect in Oregon and prohibit other states from enacting similar laws. The act also includes valuable provisions for better research and education in palliative care, but the benefits of those provisions are outweighed by the punitive sections of the act. Under PRPA, the quality of palliative care in the United States could be compromised when physicians, fearing criminal prosecution, err on the side of caution rather than risk their patients' deaths by using highly aggressive pain treatments. Furthermore, PRPA would put Drug Enforcement Administration officials, who have no medical expertise, in the position of regulating medical decisions. The act also would interfere with individual states' long-standing authority over medical practice. Finally, PRPA would discourage physicians from engaging in experimentation and innovation in palliative care, again out of concern for crossing the line between relief of suffering and physician-assisted suicide. Other bills have been introduced that go much further than PRPA to encourage palliative care, without its problematic provisions. Regardless of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide in the United States, the need for quality end-of-life care will be far better served if Congress enacts one of these bills rather than PRPA.

The implementation of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act: reassuring, but more data are needed.

Undoubtedly, empirical data from Oregon will play a key role for academics, legislators, judges, and the public as debate over the legalization of physician-assisted suicide continues. A central issue in the debate is whether a right to assisted suicide can be limited to only the truly compelling cases, or whether it will in practice be provided to patients who choose it out of depression, coercion, or misunderstanding. Empirical research can provide critical insights into this questions.

The alleged distinction between euthanasia and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: conceptually incoherent and impossible to maintain.

Richard Epstein, in his book Mortal Peril, supports euthanasia and assisted suicide and rejects the distinction between them and withdrawal treatment. In this essay, Professor Orentlicher argues that Epstein is correct in finding no meaningful moral distinction between euthanasia and treatment withdrawal, examines the reasons why the distinction has persisted in American jurisprudence, and explains why the distinction has eroded. Epstein also concludes in his book that there is no constitutional right to euthanasia or assisted suicide. Professor Orentlicher's response is that constitutionality is not the appropriate inquiry; rather, the better question is whether to recognize a right to assisted suicide once a right to euthanasia in the form of terminal sedation already exists. He answers this question in the affirmative, arguing that assisted suicide enhances patient welfare and reduces risks of abuse in a world with euthanasia.

Psychosocial assessment of organ transplant candidates and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The use of psychosocial criteria to assess candidates for organ transplantation may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability or on the basis of eligibility criteria that disproportionately affect persons with disabilities. When organ programs deny access to a person because of schizophrenia, they are denying an organ on the basis of disability. When organ programs deny access to a noncompliant person, they are denying an organ on the basis of an eligibility criterion that is more common in persons with coexisting disabilities like mental illness. Accordingly, both of these denials may violate the ADA. However, the ADA recognizes that it often is appropriate to take a person's disability into account when allocating organs for transplantation. There is a legitimate social interest in allocating organs in a way that maximizes medical benefit, and a person's disability may compromise the benefit that the person will receive from a transplant. It is likely that courts will interpret the ADA to permit denials of organs or lower waiting list priorities for persons with disabilities as long as predictions of diminished benefit are based on scientifically valid criteria, the assessment of candidates is individualized and not based entirely on generalized predictors, and the transplant program undertakes reasonable steps like psychological counseling to compensate for an organ candidate's coexisting disability.