Origin of desires for Prolonging Life with Technology
The idea of prolonging life with technology has gained more attention in recent years because of the many advances that have been made in the field of modern medical technologies. People have also developed an increasing interest as regards the issue of protecting the human rights of everyone. Using technology to prolong an individual’s life is an issue that is quite challenging.
It is an issue that has more often than not severed the relationship between medical practitioners and their patients. A doctor has a duty not to cause any harm to his or her patient. This duty often comes in disagreement with another very important aspect of a doctor’s work which is to uphold the independence of patients.
In all these duties the doctor must appreciate the right of self-determination bestowed upon patients when making healthcare decisions. It is these issues that drive many people to use technology to save or prolong the lives of many innocent persons that may be threatened by illnesses or accidents.
There are instances where doctors may be forced to terminate the life of a patient when they feel that the medical conditions and the patient’s suffering have reached unbearable limits. The need to avoid such an instance especially from those who are not ready to let go of a loved one compels them to explore the possibilities of medical technologies.
However, this raises other questions, especially on the doctor’s part. Questions are raised on whether life-prolonging techniques ought to be used to reduce the pain that people go through. There is a need for a consideration to be made on the views of all the religious sectors. As you can see, all these groups of people, the doctors, the patients, and the community have different wishes and desires that should be addressed. The problem, therefore, is how to use life-prolonging technologies to satisfy all of them (Bozzetti et al., 2006).
Defining the vehicles of Prolonging Life
A century ago no person could have imagined technology could be used to save and prolong life as it does today. By then, accidents, illnesses, diseases, and even age were the main threat to life. Physicians had little to do in saving dying persons. As we speak today, medical technologies are in place to help keep people alive.
Today there are many medications for various ailments. Technologies like artificial respiration and artificial heart functioning are used to save people who would otherwise be pronounced dead due to the absence of pulse or respiration. Another technology used in life-prolonging is the kidney dialysis machine. Before its invention, kidney failure was taken to mean death, but today many people with kidney failures live longer. Patients who would have died a hundred years ago because they could not eat are saved today by feeding intravenously (Anholt, 2005).
Other technologies have been developed recently while others are still in progress. For instance, oxidative stress exposure is used to offer protection from larger doses. This is still under research, but scientists believe that a patient’s exposure in small doses to cell-damaging conditions can build resistance to larger doses thereby prolonging an individual’s life. Therapeutic hypothermia technology is used on patients suffering from cardiac arrest to cool the body temperatures.
The technology also improves a person’s survival and neurological functioning especially after suffering from a cardiac arrest. Clot dissolving medicine is used in eliminating deep vein thrombosis by sucking out clots to prevent the life-threatening effects of the complication. Many other technologies are used to prolong life today and it is not possible to mention all of them here. What is important though is that in all their applications, the physicians must exhibit benevolence and work by the patient’s interests (Life prolonging technologies, 2010).
However, physicians may be allowed under the doctrine of double effect, to terminate a patient’s life. The doctrine of double effect provides that “death under the supervision of a physician is permissible as a secondary result of managing pain” (Catholic catechism p. 1). This sometimes conflicts with people who may be reluctant to let go of their loved ones, but physicians feel that death is the only best option.
Even religious ideals that hold that life should be left to follow its course agree that some situations call for interventions. Catholic catechism, for instance, supports medical technologies. Catechism number 2292 says that “Scientific, medical or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health” (Catholic catechism).
Catechism number 2296 is more specific. It says that “Organ transplants conform with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks incurred by the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient” (Catholic catechism p. 1). This means that medical technology is also biblically accepted provided it is for the general good of the patient. It goes ahead to state that “Donation of organs after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a manifestation of generous solidarity” (Catholic catechism p. 1).
Accordingly, it says that it will only be against religious principles if it is not done with the consent of the patient. It allows the use of technology to prolong life as seen in these lines “It is furthermore morally inadmissible directly to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even to delay the death of other persons” (Catholic catechism p. 1).
The legal framework of Prolonging Life with Technology
Many issues surround the use of technology to prolong life. One such issue is the use of Do Not Resuscitate orders (DNR). Some argue that an individual is not dead immediately after a cardiac arrest, and therefore, should be given cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) immediately. Failure to do this, physicians may be held liable for the death although, this is not universally accepted.
However, resuscitations are common whenever a patient’s heart stops beating unless a restraining order is given in advance. That is why the law provides that all terminally ill patients be issued with DNR orders so that they can specify whether they can have resuscitation or not. DNR orders are usually available on request where a refusal to resuscitation can be unconditional or the patient can specify the conditions under which, the refusal can be effective.
When a patient is unable to make such a decision, then his or her healthcare agent has the right under law to decide on his or her behalf (Freer et al., 1994).
On the issue that regards making life support decisions, the code of ethics provided by the American Medical Associations addresses it. It stipulates that:
A competent, adult patient, may, in advance, formulate and provide valid consent to the withholding and withdrawing of life-support systems if injury or illness renders that individual incompetent to make such a decision. (Morrow p. 1)
This is usually in form of a will or a health directive. The patient can also indicate in the same document a surrogate to decide case he or she is unable. In the absence of both directive and a surrogate, then the next of kin will be charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to withdraw or withhold life support. If the patient is an infant, then the parent using advice from a physician makes decisions to withhold or withdraw life support (Morrow, 2009).
It is said that all legal statutes hold precedence over the principle of practice specified under an individual’s professional code of ethics. To avoid violating the law, the physician should be familiar with the legal rights of his patients that pertain to the use of technology to prolong life.
For instance, the Congressional Patient Self Determination Act gives the patient the right to choose which type of life-prolonging technology to use. Medical counselors are allowed under this act to assist patients in exploring the available technological options of prolonging life. The counselor should, however, be cautious not to infringe on the rights of the patient.
There are cases where liability suits may be brought against medical counselors especially in cases where medical practitioners are confronted with the issue of protecting the patient and the patient’s autonomy. If client autonomy is used at the expense of the duty to protect, then the medical practitioner may be sued for malpractice by the patient’s family.
If the duty to protect is used in disregard of the patient’s autonomy, then the medical practitioner risks severing his relationship with the patient. These and many other legal issues face the use of technology to prolong life. For those in the medical field to avoid the risks involved, they should follow the required standards of practice (Brown et al., n.d.).
References
Anholt, D. (2005). Life or Death? The prolongation of Human Life. Legacy Iclark. Web.
Bozzetti et al. (2006). Home parental nutrition. CABI. New York, NY: Cengage.
Brown et.al (n.d). End-of-life decisions and counseling practice. Google Documents. Web.
Catholic catechism. (n.d). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Christusrex. Web.
Freer et al. (1994). The Living Will: A Guide to Health Care Decision Making. Wings Buffalo. Web.
Life prolonging technologies (2010). Science Fact or Fiction. Life Prolonging Technologies. Web.
Morrow, A. (2009). Deciding to Withhold or Withdraw Life-Sustaining Measures. Life Support. Web.