OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PATIENT
TO RESCIND THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION
As a natural extension of informed consent
and patient
autonomy,
the well-informed patient must always
retain the power to change
his or
her mind
about the plan for a voluntary death
or a merciful death.
When safeguards are
written into laws, we often
find the constant reminder
that the patient must not be caught up
on the planning process
to such a degree that there is no
possibility to back out
even at the
last moment.
Doctors are encouraged to remind their
patients at each step in the
process
that no boulder has been sent crashing
down the mountain,
which cannot now be stopped because it
has too much momentum of its own.
When patients are
reminded of their authority to
rescind earlier decisions,
they might take this as an opportunity
to re-think the whole process.
And they might have a new perspective
that will allow them to continue
living under limitations
that they would have found intolerable
just a month or a year earlier.
Some laws
explicitly say that the patient's mental
status
is not relevant to the decision to
rescind any earlier choice for death.
This is erring on the side of caution.
When a patient loses mental capacity
to make any other decisions,
he or she still retains the decision
to say "no" to death.
Perhaps wiser laws
will make sure that the original
decision for death
was firmly based in the settled
values
of the patient.
And the original decision for a voluntary death
was also affirmed by others who were part of the death-planning process.
Then if the patient loses
consciousness
or becomes incapable of making
meaningful medical decisions,
the original choice will be carried
forward by the proxies
appointed by
the patient for exactly such a possible situation.
The proxies should not be prevented
from actualizing the wisely-decided
plan for death
just because the patient has now
become incapable of deciding
or says "no" in some questionable
mental state.
The thinking behind
this safeguard emphasizes
patient autonomy.
The patient (and no one else) is
making the life-ending decision.
The patient should be allowed to
change his or her mind
up until the very last moment of life.
And if the patient decides to postpone the moment of death,
this does not mean that the patient loses the authority
to choose a voluntary death at some later time.
As long as the patient has the capacity to make medical decisions,
the timing and mode of death always belong to the patient.
Being reminded of the power to rescind an earlier choice of death
makes sure that this death is being wisely decided.
The patient's free and wise choice
must always be the basis of any life-ending action.
HOW PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE PATIENT TO CHANGE HIS OR HER
MIND
DISCOURAGES IRRATIONAL SUICIDE
AND OTHER FORMS OF PREMATURE
DEATH
If the patient was
tempted toward irrational suicide
by some temporary problem which has
now been resolved,
then offering the opportunity to keep
on living
could be a wonderful relief.
If the original
decision for death was poorly
conceived in the first place,
then constantly asking the patient to
reaffirm that decision
attempts to make the patient aware
that his or her autonomy
is what is really driving the decision
for death,
not some external forces over which
the patient has no control.
This safeguard does
have some potential
for saving patients from premature
death.
Because of the delay involved in
multiple questions and answers,
some new facts or perspectives might
emerge,
which will allow the patient to
re-think
the life-possibilities included in
remaining alive.
And if the doctor
or other person asking for the
patient
to reaffirm an earlier decision for
death
notices some ambivalence in the mind
of the patient,
then it might be wise to 'put a hold'
on the death-planning process
and on the projected date of death
until any ambivalence can be resolved
one way or the other.
The patient himself or herself might
take such an opportunity
to delay the process temporarily
until his or her mind becomes
completely clear
that death now would
be better than death later.
When some coercion
or manipulation was involved in
the original decision,
this might come to light when the
patient is asked to re-affirm the
life-ending decision.
He or she might admit that the
decision was mainly to benefit others.
And now he or she would really prefer
to continue living.
Any safeguard that uncovers coercion or manipulation
will help to prevent choices that might have resulted in premature
death.
Created
March 2, 2007; revised 3-21-2007; 3-22-2008