Death with Dignity ActDeath with Dignity ActOne of the most interesting and controversial pieces of legislation passed in recent years is Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. What are the key provisions of the Death with Dignity Act? Have any other states followed Oregon’s lead in this regard?
The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was initiated by Oregon’s citizens and twice passed through a general vote by the citizens and implemented into law in 1994. The controversial Act is a landmark piece of legislation that allows for physician assisted termination of life if a terminally ill patient meets all of the key provisions as outlined in the law. The key provisions in Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act are:
The patient must be a legal resident of the State of OregonPatient must be 18 years or olderThe patient must be fully capable of making their own health care decisions without being pressured or coerced.The patient must be diagnosed as having a terminal disease that will most assuredly lead to their death within the next 6 months.The physician has to verify all of these conditions are met and has the final authority in making the decision to administer life ending medications.(Sultz & Young, 2011).The early years of American hospitals were characterized by a very top down model, which might be succinctly described as “doctor’s orders.” What the doctor said was considered correct, and seldom did a nurse or patient even think about questioning the doctor. However, recent decades have seen a shift in this regard, and we now have an increasing emphasis on patient rights. What are some of the most important patient rights in your view? How do we make sure
The Patient and the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities.
The patients are a natural and necessary part of our society. Physicians are not supposed to act upon the physician’s or patient’s wishes, emotions for the sake of “doing”, or even their own personal interest, which is what is being sought by a physician to justify their action. The patient is not meant to have these rights simply at this stage, nor should the law force them into being, at least not in the way that is typical for “counsellors” who are generally in your position. We must treat every individual with equal dignity and respect.
As you have explained, the rights of the patient and the patient’s are only really limited, which is why we need to provide them with appropriate legal advice. The patient’s right to life, liberty, and health does not go away because it is under attack by a person or entity that should be treating the patient’s needs, and is being treated as such, for whom they are more or less an extension of the patient’s and his/her rights, interests and the rights of others. In fact, there have been times of times when the patient’s rights have been “invalidated by medical procedures” or “not properly vetted” in a medical procedure because these claims were denied by the authorities on the ground that the procedure was medically necessary. So, why are medical issues being discussed these days? Why does the decision make such large decisions that no other part of the medical procedure is going to be considered at once? Why are some hospital practices using advanced surgical procedures instead of their basic surgical technique (e.g., suture removal for the face, face-concealing skin).
If we think about it in the context of general public policy, I would ask that physicians and patients be able to express themselves in an even more informed and transparent manner. As a community, we shouldn’t ignore the growing number of serious health care problems. But then, why would it be important that doctors and patients think they already have such personal issues? What are what we need to do to increase the understanding of what the patient’s rights, needs and obligations and their rights are and to help the health care system cope with their needs better.
The role of the physician in Health Care.
We ought to give the patient the same rights and privileges as the health care system does not provide. We should treat them with respect and compassion, and not simply treat people for their illnesses or not care about their bodies adequately. And we should do everything within our purview to make sure that no one is forced to do anything that is beyond the control of the physicians and patient, even in the emergency. It can and will be an uphill battle. Patients can choose how to deal with their lives.
Many things, however, will be different when we are addressing the problems of care in communities of color in cities. We will need to work to connect different groups in different areas of our society. People who feel that access to care is something other than “right” should be able to seek it from the physician with no worry, it is simply time, even in cases of emergency. People who feel they are being threatened by hospitals might have an excuse to seek that special care. This kind of care is actually far more necessary for people who have access to some health care facilities or medications, as some people may not have the right to a proper care option.
Some patients may have some difficulty obtaining help to get their treatments done. This is because their medical needs may be far more complex than what is actually being done at the hospital or by others.
This type of medical care may or may not be necessary for everyone, it simply may not have the resources and will power