Introduction
Physician aided suicide normally abbreviated as PAS has been a bone of contention in the field of health law for several years. The main reason is because it has its proponents and opponents which have to be critically analyzed before the action is done. PAS essentially entails the administration of a lethal substance on the patient through the direct or indirect aid of the physician (Torrey, 2009, p. 1). For one, physicians have argued that this act violets the profound tenet of medicine as suicide is deters the basic role of physicians which is to heal and save patients from death. On the other hand, patients have their rights and deserve to live. It is because of this controversy that physician assisted suicide is forbidden in most states and nations. As a matter of fact, the state of Oregon in the United States of America is the only known state where PAS is authorized to be performed. This paper is therefore an analysis of case on patient assisted suicide looking at the legality of the decision made basing the argument on the elements of informed consent and patient’s rights.
The elements of an informed consent
An informed consent entails seeking permission from the patient on any action taken against her concerning his or her body. The patient is therefore fully informed of any process to be taken concerning her health care. This is done because the patient has legal and ethical rights to what happens to their body when seeking health care from physicians (Benak and Applegate, 2006, p. 48). Some of the basic elements of informed consent in accordance to the law include:
- The patient should be in a position to understand the details and information contained in the consent form before signing it.
- The consent should give a description of any risks or discomforts that are likely to occur during the carrying out of the procedure on the patient.
- Any other alternative methods that may be advantageous to the patient in terms of treatment should be disclosed.
- It should include a statement that indicates the confidentiality of the patient’s medical records and if the FDA is permitted to inspect the record (Benak and Applegate, 2006, p. 48).
- The consent should show the people to be contacted in case of any upcoming in the procedure.
A Discussion on whether Mrs. Sparza’s consent was properly obtained
Given the case of Mrs. Sparza on patient’s informed consent, it can be deduced that her consent was not fully or properly obtained as required by law. This is because of several reasons stipulated in the case. To begin with, the fact that Mrs. Sparza had little English skills gives an indication there were chances of her not understanding the consent form she was given to sign. Despite this fact, there is nowhere that the physicians involve an interpreter to read and interpret the contents of the consent form before she can sign it (Torrey, 2009, p. 1). The hospital therefore violated the laws on this fact.
Secondly, the consent form seems to be different from the previous surgery appointment instructions. This is because Mrs. Sparza was aware of being operated on only one eye and now she is told to be operated on both something that she objects despite her little English skills. However, this time the doctor involves an interpreter regarding the issue of having the operation conducted on both eyes. The change of operation details are not made known to her son and daughter in accordance to Mrs. Sparza’s earlier instructions.
In addition to this Mrs. Sparza is not made aware of the exact procedures that are to be conducted on her during the operation as such she is not even aware of the possible risks and discomforts.
Lastly, is the fact that since Mrs. Sparza had poor English skills she could not have been able to identify the risks involved in the operation therefore making a blind decision. Given the aforementioned facts, it is clearly noted that Mrs. Sparza’s informed consent was not properly obtained as required by the law.
Identification of Mrs. Sparza’s rights regarding end-of-life decision-making
According to health law, patients have legal rights regarding end of life decisions (Gesang, 2008, p. 176). These rights are either positive or negative depending on the decision that the patient makes. A positive right would involve the patient receiving health care regardless of the cost to be spent (Gesang, 2008, p. 176). On the other hand negative rights entail those to encounter barriers when seeking health care. With regard to this case, Mrs. Sparza made the negative rights by specifying that in the event that she went into a coma, she would not want any heroic deeds conducted on her but instead the life-support be terminated. In making her decision, Mrs. Sparza did not make any consultation although she had the right to make her own life choices.
According to the case, Mrs. Sparza’s rights to end of life are violated when the physicians fail to terminate the life support machine in the event that she goes into a coma. As per Mrs. Sparza’s instructions that her son and daughter be informed, the doctors inform them but they deny their plea to stop the life support machine thus causing incurrence of huge bills.
The nature of the act of injecting morphine
Morphine is a drug commonly used by physicians to hasten the death of a patient who is close to dying for instance those under a coma. When high doses of morphine are administrated on a patient it causes respiratory problems causing the patient to die. In this case, Mrs. Sparza chose her way of ending life which was to terminate the life support machine. The doctor violated this and instead injected morphine on her after a two day ordeal with her family members. Morphine causes pain during death as it brings about confusion, memory loss and respiratory problems which eventually make the patient to die. This is opposed to terminating the life support machine at once. Therefore the doctor violated the rights of Mrs. Sparza even in her time of death.
Legality of the act
The actions of the nurses and doctors on Mrs. Sparza can be said to be completely violating the law which calls for a suit by the family members. The family members can sue the hospital for failing to terminate the life-support machine and ask them to forfeit the medical bill incurred as a result of the time Mrs. Sparza spent on the machine (Pozgar, 2009, p. 124). The family can once again sue the hospital for failing to act in accordance to the patient’s wishes that is Mrs. Sparza and henceforth demand that they are paid damages because of the pain Mrs. Sparza underwent after the injection of morphine. The hospital again acted without consulting the next of kin of Mrs. Sparza as she had earlier stipulated and instead the nurses made their own decision of injecting the patient with morphine. Following the fact that the elements of informed consent on Mrs. Sparza were not fully obtained as required by the law, the hospital should be sued and asked to pay damages for the resulting consequences caused by breaching the laws (Pozgar, 2009, p. 131).
Conclusion
From the discussion above following the case of Mrs. Sparza, it can be concluded that the hospital involving the doctors and nurses breached the health laws in most of their undertaking. Their failure of fulfillment of the element of informed consent on Mrs. Sparza was the first major illegality that they did. This is because, it can be argued that if at all Mrs. Sparza would have been aware of the possible risks following the operation; she would have opted for other alternative methods hence not leading to her death. Secondly, if the hospital staff had obeyed Mrs. Sparza’s request of having to terminate the life-support machine, it would not have had the fight with her family members. In a nu-shell, the case is a perfect example of a situation where the elements of informed consent are not fully obtained and at the same time the rights of the patient to end life are breached.
Reference List
Benak, L. D. and Applegate, S. (2006). Informed consent and issues surrounding lack of capacity vs. incompetence. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 2(1), p. 48.
Gesang, B. (2008). Passive and active euthanasia: What is the difference? Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 11(2), pp. 175-180.
Pozgar, G. (2009). Legal essentials of health care administration. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Partlett Publishers.
Torrey, T. (2009). “The wise patient’s guide to rights and responsibilities”. About.com. Web.