dignity

When the hospital refuses to provide treatment

R. Horton

Few things are as horrifying as the idea that a hospital might refuse to treat you or a loved one at a time of crisis. This is so frightening, that many used the specter of “death panels” to terrify Americans from supporting the Affordable Care Act, which had no provision for such panels. All the same, we don’t get to go into hospitals demanding whatever treatments we think are appropriate. Doctors, other medical caregivers, and insurance companies all have a say over what treatments are acceptable for various conditions.

One of the most common issues before Hospital Ethics Committees is futility. In all the cases I experienced personally, a family member demanded treatment for loved ones that threedoctorsdoctors deemed inappropriate as they felt it offered no benefit to the patient. In most of these cases, the patient was either dying or already pronounced brain dead when the conflict arose, but other types of conflict over futility arise from time to time.

For a less grave example, consider people who get a cold or cough and go into the doctor demanding antibiotics to treat what is generally a viral infection. Some doctors might prescribe antibiotics just to appease their patients, but others will refuse on the grounds that the treatment offers no benefit to the patient while carrying both costs and some risks. (If you prefer an even more absurd example just to illustrate the point, imagine someone demanding cholesterol medicine to treat a broken arm.) This type treatment is futile because it will have no effect on the condition being treated.

Another kind of futility is both more common and more serious in its consequences. These cases often, though not always, involve infants on ventilators or elderly patients receiving artificial nutrition (feeding tubes) and hydration. In these cases, doctors and the family or other surrogates agree that the feeding tubes or ventilators are keeping the patient alive, but disagree on the value of doing so. In some cases, the patient may be suffering and medical providers feel the patient’s suffering makes it unconscionable to continue treatment. In other cases, the patient may be in a permanent state of unconsciousness or even be brain dead, and the healthcare providers feel the patient no longer exists as a person in any real sense. All the qualities associated with life (consciousness, will, pleasure) are already gone, so treatment has no use.

Few forces in the world are as powerful as the duty we feel to protect our children or to care for our parents or other loved ones. The one comfort we take in the face of such a devastating loss is that we “did everything we could.” When doctors tell us that doing “everything” is costly, painful, and of no value, it can be more than painful to accept. Complicating matters is that most of us have heard of miracle cases where people recovered despite dire prognoses. When told that no more than one in a million patients survive such a condition, family members often only hear that there is some chance of survival. It is a point of honor that they will “never give up” on their child or parent.

I’ve seen doctors handle futility with great skill and also with awkwardness. In one case, a man was convinced the hospital was abandoning his wife at the time she most needed care. The man felt the doctor was expressing the needs of the hospital rather than the needs of his wife. Once he was reassured that she would be cared for even in the absence of treatment, he felt much better about discontinuing treatment. In another case, the doctor made every effort to assure the parents of an infant that she and the entire staff would stay with them throughout the ordeal and do everything possible to reduce both the suffering of the child and the pain of the parents.

It is impossible, of course, to eliminate all disagreements and conflict, but I think doctors who are able to effectively communicate empathy and concern for the patient and the people who love the patient have greater success at avoiding battles with patients. We all want to know our experiences are recognized and validated. We all want to be heard. We also want the dignity of our loved ones to be promoted and protected, especially as they face death, which strips them of autonomy and self-respect. We want healthcare providers to recognize that we hold our dying loved ones in the highest regard even if they can no longer speak for themselves and show why they are worthy of such respect. When we fight for their lives, I think we are really fighting for their dignity and worth as a person. Doctors will do well to keep that in mind.

Notes on European Socialized Healthcare

R. Horton1 Comment

Yesterday, I posted a blog about three people who must rely on contributions from friends, admirers, and strangers to maintain the healthcare they need, and these three individuals are not unusual cases in the US. It is the argument of conservatives that universal healthcare coverage (or anything socialized) will deprive workers of their dignity. It is the pride of ownership and rewards for hard work that gives people self-respect and a feeling of accomplishment. Providing for yourself makes you a better person.

The majority of Europeans, where it is generally inconceivable that anyone would be forced to hold a fundraiser to pay medical bills, seem to disagree. Just as most Americans do not consider Social Security or public education to be a demeaning form of charity, most Europeans do not consider healthcare to be a demeaning government handout. Rather, healthcare is a burden shared by all to protect their common interests. The costs of advanced medical technologies and surgeries are out of range for all but the richest Americans. Medical emergencies can quickly run to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. A six-figure salary will not offset the costs.

Having to ask friends, family, admirers, and strangers to help pay your bills is demeaning, demoralizing, and degrading. The conservative vision of letting everyone pay their own way or debase themselves in their dying months, weeks, or days is appalling and unconscionable. I have my own objections to the Affordable Care Act, but trying to fix the problem is more honorable than ignoring the problem or, worse, declaring that the current crisis in healthcare is acceptable. We must demand solutions. If you are opposed to the solution on the table, bring your idea to the table.

Ignoring the problem is killing us. Unfortunately, we must also be humiliated before we can die penniless and ashamed.

Glenn Beck is shocked by bioethics blog about an article saying killing isn’t really wrong.

R. Horton

By now, commentary on Glenn Beck seems superfluous—his views are so patently divorced from reality, but this topic could use some discussion anyway. In this clip, he responds to a blog titled “Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists” by Michael Cook. Beck seems unaware that his comments are actually about an article titled “What Makes Killing Wrong?” by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Franklin G. Miller in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Cook, of course, is just commenting on the original article. Although the full article by Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller is available online, Beck obviously did not take the time to read it. Or, if he read it, he certainly does not want his listeners to.

Here’s the problem: Hospital Ethics Committees (or other hospital entities) must develop extremely precise procedures for organ harvesting. They do this because they do not believe it is ethical to kill patients for their organs, nor do they want others to believe, rightly or wrongly, that they kill patients for their organs. Sometimes, when someone is dying from an extreme and irreversible injury (such as a gunshot wound to the head), doctors will begin to remove organs only to have a monitor show a heartbeat or two. This event can be disconcerting.

I can see three alternatives here: 1. Turn off the monitors and declare the patient dead (changing the definition of death, if necessary). 2. Wait till there is no chance the heart may beat again and risk losing organs that could save another life. 3. Declare that the patient is alive but that killing the patient is acceptable.

Most ethicists have tended to suggest some variation of the first two options, but Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller think it is more honest to accept the third. If the heart may still beat, they argue that the patient is not dead but that it is morally permissible to kill that patient. The authors also make it more challenging by imagining a patient in this state for an extended time (on a ventilator or other artificial life support).

Unfortunately, their term for a patient in this state is “universally and totally disabled,” meaning that the patient cannot suffer, feel, think, or have any other function associated with being a living human being. Beck seizes on the term “disabled” and suggests they want to kill all the disabled people in the world. Is Beck being dishonest or did he just miss the point? Does it matter to you?

The final issue for Beck is that the authors said mere life is not sacred or we would not be able to pull weeds without violating the sanctity of life. So, Beck and his followers are incensed that they authors compared human life to weeds. But, of course, they did not.

No, Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller went on to distinguish between the sanctity of “life” and of “human life.” They follow the weed comment with this explanation:

 “Of course, what people mean when they say ‘Don’t kill’ is ‘Don’t kill humans’ (or maybe ‘Don’t kill sentient animals’). But why then are humans (or sentient animals) singled out for moral protection? The natural answer is that humans (and sentient animals) have greater abilities than plants, and those abilities give human lives more value. Humans can think and make decisions as well as feel (an ability that they share with sentient animals). But if these abilities are what make it immoral to kill humans (but not weeds), then what really matters is the loss of ability when humans (but not weeds) are killed. And then the view that human life is sacred does not conflict with—and might even depend on—the view that what makes life sacred (if it is) is ability, so the basic moral rule is not ‘Don’t kill’ but is instead ‘Don’t disable’.”

To be sure, the article in the Journal of Medical Ethics is provocative, and articles in ethics journals should be provocative. Many bioethicists, doctors, and lay people will disagree that killing is ever acceptable. Discussion of this issue is needed and welcome. Distortions, flag waving, and hysteria are not.

Will technology destroy heroism?

R. Horton1 Comment

While heroism is a concept without rigid definitions, I will loosely define it as putting one’s own life at great risk for the benefit of others. We may say that someone who developed lifesaving technology is a hero, but his or her laudable actions may or may not fit the description of heroism I’m trying to describe. For example, developing a life-saving vaccine is a laudable achievement for anyone, but some people have developed such vaccines by their willingness to first try inoculating themselves, knowing that their inoculations could kill them.  Similarly, those who may fly test aircraft they designed put their own lives at risk in order to benefit others.

In the past, technology created a heroic elite of sorts. Not many people had an opportunity to be the first person in space. Also, not many people had the education or experience to dream of how to inoculate someone against smallpox. People with the most advanced training would put their lives on the line to test new technology, leading to even greater advances in both knowledge and skill. These people saved lives, won wars, and opened the wonders of the universe to us all. They used technology to expand their opportunities to demonstrate their courage and commitment to human advancement.

It seems to me that something has changed, though. Unmanned spacecraft are now going deeper and deeper into space to return information we only dreamed of before, but the risk to humans has now been minimized. The space explorer now sits comfortably on earth as a machine takes all the risks of space travel. Unmanned drones now conduct what would have been extremely dangerous operations only a few years ago. We still need humans to fly and take great risks, but we can now imagine a time when all flight operations may be automated. The fighter pilot and astronaut may both become obsolete.  In medicine as well, new developments are frequently mechanized with risk to humans greatly reduced.

It is hard to find a reason to complain about this development. I would much prefer to have a robot disarm a powerful explosive than to have a human risk being blown to bits. Technological advances that reduce risk are welcome, and they will never eliminate heroism. What they do, though, is shift an emphasis from the elite heroes of the recent past to the more mundane heroes known throughout history. People will always risk their lives for others without the benefit of advanced aircraft, space travel, or obscure scientific knowledge.

People will continue to rescue others from fire and drowning. Foot soldiers will continue to fight battles on the ground, often in primitive forms of combat our ancient ancestors would recognize. People with brilliant but controversial ideas will continue to express them in the face of public hostility and aggression. And people will continue to put their lives on the line to defend democracy, freedom, and human dignity.

Brooks and the Milquetoast Revolution

R. Horton3 Comments

In today’s New York Times column, David Brooks mocks the Occupy Wall Street protesters for offering only mild and ineffective solutions to the country’s problems, rather than radical changes that would significantly alter the American system. It’s funny, but I haven’t seen or heard any OWS protesters claiming to be radicals or to want to overthrow the American system. Rather, I have seen people who love their country and want to let their leaders know they are not expendable. This should not be radical; in fact, no one should ever have to assert this position. We should assume all Americans are of value and that repairing our nation will require shared sacrifice.

He says, “They will have no realistic proposal to reduce the debt or sustain the welfare state. Even if you tax away 50 percent of the income of those making between $1 million and $10 million, you only reduce the national debt by 1 percent, according to the Tax Foundation.” I happen to think that removing the Bush-era tax cuts, ending corporate subsidies for corporations making huge profits, and closing tax loopholes that enable rich individuals and corporations to pay taxes at an exceptionally low rate or not at all, you will have an impact on the national debt.

But what if I am wrong? I am a humanist and not an economist, after all. I don’t have the solutions for the economic problems of the country, but I do feel that everyone should be subject to the same laws, same punishments, and same regard. After the financial collapse in 2008, we were told that banks were too big to fail and that we must rescue them. Taxpayers bailed out the banks only to see them become even larger through mergers and continue the same dangerous behaviors that caused the economic failure in the first place. We rescued them, rewarded their bad behavior, and are now being treated as if our voices do not matter.

If the banks are too big to fail, and the government won’t break them up, we must make them smaller ourselves by moving our money to credit unions and smaller banks. We must hold corporations accountable for their crimes. We must ask them to pay their share of rebuilding our country. Mr. Brooks is correct; this is not radical. He may also be correct that it will not solve all the financial problems of the United States, but it will be fair.

It is more important for me to live in a fair and just society than it is to live in a prosperous society. We should not need a revolution to achieve this.