End-of-Life Choice, Palliative Care and Counseling

Posts TaggedCatholic Bishops

Care at the End of Life

The New York Times
November 24, 2012

Three years ago, at the height of the debate over health care reform, there was an uproar over a voluntary provision that encouraged doctors to discuss with Medicare patients the kinds of treatments they would want as they neared the end of life. That thoughtful provision was left out of the final bill after right-wing commentators and Republican politicians denounced it falsely as a step toward euthanasia and “death panels.”

Fortunately, advance planning for end-of-life decisions has been going on for years and is continuing to spread despite the demagogy on the issue in 2009. There is good evidence that, done properly, it can greatly increase the likelihood that patients will get the care they really want. And, as a secondary benefit, their choices may help reduce the cost of health care as well.

Many people sign living wills that specify the care they want as death nears and powers of attorney that authorize relatives or trusted surrogates to make decisions if they become incapacitated. Those standard devices have been greatly improved in recent years by adding medical orders signed by a doctor — known as Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment, or POLST — to ensure that a patient’s wishes are followed, and not misplaced or too vague for family members to be sure what a comatose patient would want.

Fifteen states, including New York, have already enacted laws or regulations to authorize use of these forms. Similar efforts are under development in another 28 states. The laws generally allow medical institutions to decide whether to offer the forms and always allow patients and families to decide voluntarily whether to use them.

With these physician orders, the doctor, or in some states a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, leads conversations with patients, family members and surrogates to determine whether a patient with advanced illness wants aggressive life-sustaining treatment, a limited intervention or simply palliative or hospice care. More

How the Catholic Church Misunderstands Death With Dignity

By Wendy Kaminer
The Atlantic
September 17, 2012

My father, a lifelong atheist, died at 91 in a Catholic hospice center. He received excellent, compassionate care from his nurses and from a doctor who willingly administered the morphine needed to ease his suffering — although, she advised, it would hasten his death. Did she violate the doctrine of a church actively opposing a Death with Dignity proposal now on the ballot in Massachusetts?

The medical team was administering palliative care, not assisting in a suicide. According to a Church spokeswoman, “You can have whatever level of morphine you need to control the pain, even if that level of treatment hastens death.” Palliative care is “legitimate,” even when it risks “shortening life,” Cardinal Sean O’Malley explains — so long as “the intent is not to hasten death, but only to ease the pain of a dying patient.”

I guess God knows the intent of every physician who administers pain medication to terminal patients, but law enforcement officials can’t be expected to know it. And sometimes, palliative care involves not just “the risk of shortening life” but the knowledge that it will shorten life. What if the only way to ease pain is to shorten life? More

End-of-Life Care Reassurance as ACH Considers Its Dignity Deal

Ashland Daily Tidings
September 13, 2012

 

Ashland Community Hospital officials insist the end-of-life care its patients receive will not change if a partnership is formed with Dignity Health.

Physicians at ACH can prescribe patients who qualify under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act medication that induces death upon ingesting, said Mark Marchetti, ACH chief executive officer. “We have no policies that dictate the issue one way or another,” Marchetti said. “We certainly don’t monitor our physicians’ prescribing.”

The hospital’s physicians can discuss the option of self-administered death with patients, he said.

Many of ACH’s physicians have made the personal and legal choice to not prescribe aid-in-dying medications, Marchetti said, “because that’s their personal philosophical position.”

Patients who are part of ACH’s Hospice Program, which cares for those diagnosed with illnesses that likely will kill them within six months, can discuss the option of self-administered death with hospice nurses and social workers as well, he said.

The Hospice Program’s nurses and social workers “refer them to their own physician and continue to provide the hospice services … and we’re even willing to be there while they take the drug,” Marchetti said. “We don’t participate.”

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act requires a patient who opts for aid in dying to administer the life-ending drug independently.

Jason Renaud, a representative from Compassion & Choices of Oregon, said he is concerned ACH’s policy will change if a partnership is formed. More

Bishops Step Over the Line

Over and over we see the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops confuse the right to exercise their religion with a right to impose their religion on Americans who don’t share it. This is not a subtle difference.

And, as Bill Moyers points out in the context of their intransigence on access to birth control, the bishops aren’t content with an exception from the rule that, like other employers, they provide birth control coverage to workers in their hospitals and universities. They also want to be able to keep their employees from obtaining birth control pills from a third-party insurer, at no cost to themselves.

This stance grossly abuses the rights and privileges of American business owners. Let’s face it: Hospitals are money-making operations, dominant in the economy and relying in great measure on government Medicare contracts and employer-based health plans. To allow one very large employer to dictate private healthcare decisions of its employees would distort the American ideal of freedom of religion into a very un-American practice of religious tyranny. The bishops want to control everyone’s moral decisions, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

In the context of end-of-life choice, the bishops enforce Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare. This document instructs doctors to ignore advance directives that conflict with Catholic moral teaching (ERD #24), requires patients in permanent vegetative states to overcome a presumption in favor of indefinite tube feeding (ERD #58), disallows as “euthanasia” a patient’s refusal of treatment such as kidney dialysis if intended to advance the time of death (ERD’s #59 and 60), and urges employees to offer religious teaching on the redemptive power of suffering when standard comfort care fails (ERD #61).

With regard to Oregon and Washington’s Death with Dignity Acts, the bishops use the machinery of Catholic healthcare to withhold information and support for aid in dying, a legal end-of-life choice. Catholic hospitals, hospices and healthcare systems in those states often impose a draconian gag rule on their employees to deprive patients in their care of comprehensive knowledge of end-of-life choices. As noted by Crosscut and The Seattle Timesthe Sisters of Providence healthcare system imposed policy that employees can’t discuss the issue with patients, even if asked. In response, Steven Saxe, director of the state’s Office of Health Professions and Facilities, reassured healthcare workers that all healthcare providers, including those at Providence, have a “protected right to offer basic information” about the law to patients.

An oppressive gag rule not only violates a cardinal rule of informed consent in healthcare, it also tramples the free speech rights and professional ethics of hospital employees and physician contractors.

As with contraception, a free society must find the middle ground. Catholic Bishops must be free to exercise their religion, yet we cannot allow them to deny that same freedom to the rest of us.

Good News From Kentucky!

2011 closed with good news out of Kentucky. On Friday Governor Steve Beshear refused to approve a Louisville hospital merger that threatened patient choice. Compassion & Choices, MergerWatch, the National Women’s Law Center and other national advocacy organizations joined local activists to raise constitutional and public policy questions regarding potential threats to end-of-life and reproductive care. In announcing his decision, Gov. Beshear noted “significant legal and policy concerns.”

Religious doctrine limits patient choice in over 600 of our nation’s hospitals, nursing homes and HMOs. When a Catholic healthcare institution merges with a non-sectarian one, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Healthcare (ERDs) invariably control care provided by the merged entity. Compassion & Choices is committed to joining patient rights advocates to oppose the imposition of religious restrictions wherever the threat arises.

This proposal ceded control of Louisville’s only public hospital to a Catholic healthcare company (St. Joseph Health System), and placed healthcare decisions in the hands of the local bishop and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. We applaud Governor Beshear for exercising good stewardship and ensuring that University Hospital (UNL) serves the public interest and needs for future generations of Kentucky citizens. “If this merger were allowed to happen,” Beshear said, “UNL and the public would have only indirect and minority influence over the new statewide network’s affairs and its use of public assets.”

Despite assurances from architects of the merger, loss of public influence in healthcare could have disastrous consequences for the people who depend on publicly funded healthcare. The people could never again rely on their public institution to place the highest priority on community needs. The ERDs that govern Catholic healthcare enforce Catholic doctrine. Staff and administrators must balance that doctrine, when possible, with community needs. Some options remain forbidden, no matter how great or pressing the need may be. This balance can leave the community with uncertain and unpredictable service.

A doctor at St. Joseph Hospital – a defender of St. Joseph’s Catholic identity – wrote of the confusing and contradictory statements made by hospital officials:

An Oct. 24 (Louisville) Courier-Journal article noted that on June 14, U of L Dean Halperin, “made a promise that we’ll respect the ERDs of the Catholic Church,” and on June 30, University Hospital CEO James Taylor stated, “we’ve also made the commitment that by joining the network with (SJHS) … we will adhere to the ERDs.”

Now that a merger might be imminent, a different stance has surfaced. The merger partners state in an Oct. 19 Metro Board of Health (BOH) release that University Hospital “will not become a Catholic hospital and will not be required to follow the ERDs.”

The Courier-Journal calls this “legal mumbo-jumbo.” Nonetheless, University Hospital spokesman David McArthur would not concede that it was a position change, but “an evolution of our explanation.”

Without governing authority, UNL and the citizens it serves could be forever tossed like a kite upon the changing winds of “evolving explanations” and changes in Church policy. In recent decades, the Vatican has become more conservative and U.S. bishops have required stricter obedience from Catholic healthcare institutions. No one can predict how Catholic doctrine or enforcement may change in the future, and once a public institution is lost, its accountability to the public welfare is lost forever.

So we welcome the new year with a celebration of effective community advocacy and a toast to elected officials who act in the public interest. Kentucky Reps. Mary Lou Marzian and Tom Burch helped inform the governor of advocates’ concerns and urged him to stand up for all Kentucky residents and their right to comprehensive healthcare.

We remain watchful. Announcing his decision, the governor said “… I have determined that this proposed transaction is not in the best interest of the commonwealth …” The emphasis was his. Compassion & Choices will resist any proposal – in Kentucky or elsewhere – that fails to safeguard patient rights to a full range of end-of-life healthcare choices