Progo35
09-11-2007, 12:51 AM
As most people here know, I've been trying to work on ways of making people aware of futile care laws. Over the last few months I've been trying to design an official organization that would fight against these laws specifically. Because I feel that such issues are often presented by the media as religious vs. non-religious debates, I feel that it is important to have people of all faiths and opinions involved.
I would assume that there are atheists out there who, like many others, see these laws as an attack on human liberty and/or immoral, and also atheists who see removing the feeding tubes of cognitively disabled people as immoral. In the case of the American Atheists, I wasn't asking their organization to get involved but was asking if there were people within the organization who were against such laws and/or starving cognitively disabled people. I thought that I had established in my first email that these two issues, while related because of th people group they affect, are different from each other because Futile Care Laws violate patient autonomy while the removal of feeding tubes may or may not violate patient autonomy based on the person's expressed wishes. But, the person responding to my email seemed to twist what I said. Did she not understand what I wrote? Did she feel that no one in their right mind would want to live as a dying or terminally ill/disabled person and that doctors were actually carrying out patient's true wishes when they enforced futile care laws? Or, was I somehow unclear in regard to what I was asking her opinion on? Did she just read something into it that wasn't there? I did email her back, so I guess I'll see if she says anything further.
What do you guys think?
In a message dated 9/3/07 8:46:46 PM, safe_nonprofit@yahoo.com writes:
First Name:Meghan
Last Name:Schrader
Email:safe_nonprofit@yahoo.com
Comment:Hello,
I am attempting to form an organization that
would fight against Futile Care Laws, which
give doctors the right to override patient
requests for treatment in the case of serious
illness or disability.
What is disconcerting to me is that very
often, the medis coverage I see seems to
portray such issues as a Christian vs. non
Christian issue. Although I have seen
miniscule coverage on futile care laws
specifically, many problems, such as the
removal of disabled peoples' feeding tubes
without any written proof of the individual's
wishes, seem applicable to a common set of
principles that apply to both Christians,
other religious people and athiests.
So, what I would like to know is if there is
anyone in your organization that has worked to
prevent such things from happening or who
opposes them. I hope to get in contact with
individuals who are not religious but also
feel that refusing medical care to extremely
sick or disabled people, or starving a
disabled person by removing his or her feeding
tube, is wrong.
Would it be possible for someone from your
organization to help me with this?
Thanks,
Meghan Schrader
IP:66.153.81.2
Hello,
That isn't our issue per se. If it involved the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment then we would get involved. So far that hasn't happened. But your particular point of view - that patients desires should be ignored is not something I support.
Sincerely,
Ellen Johnson, President
American Atheists
Hello, Ellen,
Thanks for getting back to me. I have to admit, I am a bit confused by your email. My position is that the patients' desire should not be ignored, ever, and that to do so when the patient is requesting care is not only unjustifiable paternalism, but unconscienceable mistreatment. This is what Futile Care Laws allow doctors to do: even if the patient desires treatment, he or she can deny this to a patient. That is the main thrust of what I'm saying. Also, I'm not saying that a feeding tube can't be removed if that is what the patient wants, but I do think that there needs to be proof that the patient wanted that and that the patient's condition is truly terminal, i.e, causing their death, which does not apply in all cases. For instance, I would consider it cruel and negligent to watch my roommate, a perfectly healthy individual, kill herself, thus, I consider it cruel to allow patients who are cognitively disabled (but not dying from a terminal illness) to kill themselves by starving themselves to death. I, personally, do not see food as a medical treatment, even if administered artificially.
But, I certainly don't feel that people who are against Futile Care laws because of their violation of patient autonomy have to share this viewpoint. In fighting against such laws, it is not necessary that concerned citizens agree on whether to remove feeding tubes in the cases of cognitively disabled patients who have expressed that desire. Although related, it is a separate issue because of its relevance to the patient's wishes. It would be my goal as an activist to make my activities open to people of all different persuasions on various issues, so that people do not have to feel that by fighting against futile care laws, they are fighting FOR other things that they don't agree with. Did I give the impression that I support ignoring patient autonomy? I thought I had made it clear that I my convictions were the opposite, but perhaps I was not clear enough. Perhaps you would be willing to clarify this for me? Thanks.
I am aware that this particular issue is not something that your organization deals with, but I was wondering if there were any individuals within your organization that did advocacy work for severely disabled or sick people in their own lives and/or who shares the viewpoint that futile care laws are wrong in theory and application.
Sincerely,
Meghan Schrader
I would assume that there are atheists out there who, like many others, see these laws as an attack on human liberty and/or immoral, and also atheists who see removing the feeding tubes of cognitively disabled people as immoral. In the case of the American Atheists, I wasn't asking their organization to get involved but was asking if there were people within the organization who were against such laws and/or starving cognitively disabled people. I thought that I had established in my first email that these two issues, while related because of th people group they affect, are different from each other because Futile Care Laws violate patient autonomy while the removal of feeding tubes may or may not violate patient autonomy based on the person's expressed wishes. But, the person responding to my email seemed to twist what I said. Did she not understand what I wrote? Did she feel that no one in their right mind would want to live as a dying or terminally ill/disabled person and that doctors were actually carrying out patient's true wishes when they enforced futile care laws? Or, was I somehow unclear in regard to what I was asking her opinion on? Did she just read something into it that wasn't there? I did email her back, so I guess I'll see if she says anything further.
What do you guys think?
In a message dated 9/3/07 8:46:46 PM, safe_nonprofit@yahoo.com writes:
First Name:Meghan
Last Name:Schrader
Email:safe_nonprofit@yahoo.com
Comment:Hello,
I am attempting to form an organization that
would fight against Futile Care Laws, which
give doctors the right to override patient
requests for treatment in the case of serious
illness or disability.
What is disconcerting to me is that very
often, the medis coverage I see seems to
portray such issues as a Christian vs. non
Christian issue. Although I have seen
miniscule coverage on futile care laws
specifically, many problems, such as the
removal of disabled peoples' feeding tubes
without any written proof of the individual's
wishes, seem applicable to a common set of
principles that apply to both Christians,
other religious people and athiests.
So, what I would like to know is if there is
anyone in your organization that has worked to
prevent such things from happening or who
opposes them. I hope to get in contact with
individuals who are not religious but also
feel that refusing medical care to extremely
sick or disabled people, or starving a
disabled person by removing his or her feeding
tube, is wrong.
Would it be possible for someone from your
organization to help me with this?
Thanks,
Meghan Schrader
IP:66.153.81.2
Hello,
That isn't our issue per se. If it involved the Establishment Clause to the First Amendment then we would get involved. So far that hasn't happened. But your particular point of view - that patients desires should be ignored is not something I support.
Sincerely,
Ellen Johnson, President
American Atheists
Hello, Ellen,
Thanks for getting back to me. I have to admit, I am a bit confused by your email. My position is that the patients' desire should not be ignored, ever, and that to do so when the patient is requesting care is not only unjustifiable paternalism, but unconscienceable mistreatment. This is what Futile Care Laws allow doctors to do: even if the patient desires treatment, he or she can deny this to a patient. That is the main thrust of what I'm saying. Also, I'm not saying that a feeding tube can't be removed if that is what the patient wants, but I do think that there needs to be proof that the patient wanted that and that the patient's condition is truly terminal, i.e, causing their death, which does not apply in all cases. For instance, I would consider it cruel and negligent to watch my roommate, a perfectly healthy individual, kill herself, thus, I consider it cruel to allow patients who are cognitively disabled (but not dying from a terminal illness) to kill themselves by starving themselves to death. I, personally, do not see food as a medical treatment, even if administered artificially.
But, I certainly don't feel that people who are against Futile Care laws because of their violation of patient autonomy have to share this viewpoint. In fighting against such laws, it is not necessary that concerned citizens agree on whether to remove feeding tubes in the cases of cognitively disabled patients who have expressed that desire. Although related, it is a separate issue because of its relevance to the patient's wishes. It would be my goal as an activist to make my activities open to people of all different persuasions on various issues, so that people do not have to feel that by fighting against futile care laws, they are fighting FOR other things that they don't agree with. Did I give the impression that I support ignoring patient autonomy? I thought I had made it clear that I my convictions were the opposite, but perhaps I was not clear enough. Perhaps you would be willing to clarify this for me? Thanks.
I am aware that this particular issue is not something that your organization deals with, but I was wondering if there were any individuals within your organization that did advocacy work for severely disabled or sick people in their own lives and/or who shares the viewpoint that futile care laws are wrong in theory and application.
Sincerely,
Meghan Schrader