Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Monday, August 24, 2009

"The Woman Who Decided to Die"

Ronald Munson is a bioethicist who has worked for such esteemed organizations as the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute. He has also authored several non fiction books, as well as one of the most widely used medical ethics texts in the United States. His newest book "The Woman Who Decided to Die: Challenges and Choices at the Edges of Medicine" was published in 2009 by Oxford University Press.

When I read the prologue, describing that the flow of the book would be ten scenarios of real world moral dilemmas faced by Munson himself, I was pretty eager to jump in.

While the stories themselves were extremely well written and even page turning in their narrative form I was surprised with how common place I found them. I was expecting moral and ethical dilemmas that would spur hours of discussions amongst my colleagues. What I found were stories more geared to a non medical audience. For those of us in the trenches, these are a part of our daily experiences.

For instance, there was a 31 year old woman who opted to not pursue further chemo. Now it was a little edgy that she decided not to bring her husband into that decision, but I'm pretty used to people not wanting to pursue chemo, even if doctors know it will help or even with a chance of cure.

Another woman with a schizophrenic break, was a suicide risk and was committed against her will into a psych unit. Yep, pretty standard.

I'm probably sounding too critical. It is a very well written book, I just think it is my career in palliative medicine that skews the "wow" factor.

Probably the most interesting story I found was about an inmate who had been convicted of murder (that of a woman and her child), who was admitted from prison in need of a heart transplant. I did find myself wondering what the outcome would be, as different states have actually taken different approaches to this exact scenario. California has transplanted an inmate to the tune of an estimated cost of 2 million to the state, while as Arkansas denied a transplant to a inmate, who then died of liver failure. You'll have to read the book to see what Munson suggested at an emergency ethics meeting regarding this case.

This review would not be complete without mentioning the narrative I had the most trouble with. The story was of a man with throat cancer, who had communicated with family and friends that he wouldn't want to be kept alive if his quality of life was not an acceptable one. Things progressed, he had a final surgery which removed most of his tongue and half of his face (both upper and lower parts of his jaw) and was on life support after surgery. He was dying anyway of cancer, and his wife stepped up to advocate his wishes.

What happened next is what troubled me. In this situation I would expect a palliative care consult, a review with medical staff and nurses for a planned extubation with family at bedside for the switch to comfort measures. Instead something clandestine occurred. We aren't quite sure, but the doctor was in the room alone, and then comes out saying his bleeding had worsened, blood pressure dropped and he died. WHAT? The implications was that this doctor actually did something to hasten death. Even more alarming were these last sentences in this chapter;

"Patients are given large doses of morphine to reduce their pain. The drug also slows respiration, so an amount effective in controlling pain can, in a weakened patient, hasten death"

I nearly jumped from my chair. Morphine used as an amount to effectively control pain does not hasten death! When will such fallacies quit embedding themselves into literature and the media. I expect such things from a non-medical author, but clearly Ronald Munson,while not a clinician, is experienced in the medical world.

Perhaps these were stories from the edges of medicine, but I'd almost guess that like the galaxy expanding, the edges he knew are now just generally accepted principles. It is the new edges we deal with now that I hope to someday see in print.

Monday, August 24, 2009 by Amy Clarkson · 4

Monday, June 16, 2008

"The Sea Inside"

“A freedom that ends life is no freedom at all.”
“And a life that ends freedom isn’t a life either.”

“The Sea Inside” is a Spanish film, based on the true story of Ramon Sampedro, a quadriplegic who fought for 28 years for the right to end his own life. It won an Academy Award in 2004 for Best Foreign Language Film.

Ramon sustained a spinal cord injury in his youth, after a diving accident. Since that time, he was completely dependent on his family (mostly his sister-in-law Manuela). The story revolves around his relationship with 2 different women, his lawyer Julia, who is herself dealing with a life-threatening illness, and Rosa, a single mother who is trying to find meaning in life and hopes to help Ramon do the same.

As Ramon struggles to convince a judge that he has the right to take his own life, he also struggles to convince his family, friends, and clergy. In an interesting scene, Ramon debates euthanasia with a quadriplegic priest (scene quoted above).

This clip shows the power of Ramon's mind to escape his crippled body. He is able to stand up, walk to window and fly away. His mind could be free even while still a prisoner, similar to themes in "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (the movie was released on DVD in April).






His mind also keeps going back to the moment after his accident, the moment he almost dies and is pulled back into life. He seems so peaceful in the water up until the moment he is pulled out. Very symbolic that this scene is repeated at the end of the movie.

Warning: Spoiler ahead. Highlight to see.

*SPOILER: Compare the different decisions made by Ramon and Julia and the effects of those decisions. Julia says that she will help him die and then take her own life. She changes her mind and decides to go on living, leaving Ramon in the prison which his life. In the second to last scene, Ramon is finally released through death (with the help of the women who had set out to give his life meaning). The scene that follows shows Julia. She is now herself a prisoner of life. She has become so impaired from strokes that she no longer even remembers Ramon (her worst fears about her illness come true). She decided to live and is now the prisoner while Ramon who always wanted to die has been released. His poem to her is beautiful. I wonder if it loses much in the translation?*


To me, quality of life was the overriding theme of this film (even more than hastened death). Regardless of ones views on hastened death, Ramon’s story is a great demonstration of how quality of life can mean different things to different people. To Ramon, life as a quadriplegic had no dignity. The priest saw that just living was enough. I wish we knew more about why Julia made her decisions (fear of death? love for her husband?).

I will end this post with a quote from Ramon from the beginning of the movie. (This scene would be excellent to play in a talk about dignity or quality of life).

“I want to die because life for me in this condition…life like this has no dignity…I understand that other quadriplegics might get offended when I say that life like this has no dignity. I don’t judge anyone. Who am I to…to judge those who want to live? That’s why I ask that neither me, nor the person who helps me die, be judged.”

Monday, June 16, 2008 by Amber Wollesen, MD · 0