You will have noticed that New Times
Naturally! is going through a transition. An exciting one! To serve
you, readers and advertisers, better, Dee and I have decided to “retire”
and we have turned the daily running, management and editing of the
magazine over to new publishers, Keith and Cindi Matter. They have
considerable experience in the publishing field and we are confident
that under their leadership, and with your support, the magazine will
continue to expand – as it has done for the past eighteen years.
Dee and I will still be around, but in the background.
I put the “retire” in quotes. Hopefully for me this transition
will be the start of a new career – freelance writing. I am
currently working on a book about my cancer experience – going
into more depth about alternative therapies etc. And I may try my
hand at children’s stories.
I should like to thank you, the readers of my columns, for the feedback
you have given. Your support and encouragement over the years has
meant, and still means, a lot to me. I hope you will continue to let
me know what you think.
Now to the main topic for this issue: living wills.
The media was on a Terri Shiavo kick for some time – until the
Pope’s death displaced her. I guess it is a matter of ratings!
The problem is that the intense emotions of those on both sides of
the case tend to obscure the real issues. The one good thing is that
it is putting a spotlight on is the subject of living wills.
Who should have the right to decide on matters of life and death?
My answer, and from the polls it appears to be the answer of most
Americans, is the individual him or herself. But what in cases, such
as the Shiavo case, where the wishes of the individual are not totally
clear. Someone has to make a decision. Should this be the spouse,
the parents, the doctors, the courts, or the politicians? I believe
it should be the spouse but I can understand the viewpoint of others
who feel differently. However, isn’t this what democracy is
about? We have a discussion; we figure out a majority decision; this,
unless it seriously conflicts with the rights of some minority group,
is enacted into laws; and it is the job of the courts to see that
the laws are upheld.
Currently the law says that, where there is a conflict between the
spouse and the parents, the spouse’s decision is the senior
one. If the majority of people feel that this is wrong, then, after
appropriate discussion and debate, the law should be changed. But
this doesn’t appear to be the case.
Clearly it is not a perfect system. There are no doubt cases where
for practical considerations, such as financial, the wishes of the
individual are not carried out by the spouse. But this, to my way
of thinking, is beside the point. The real question is whether or
not there is a better solution. I can’t think of one. Would
I want decisions concerning my life or death to be in the hands of
the doctors, the courts, or the politicians? No thank you!
Which comes back to the issue of how to avoid the problem in the first
place, and hence a discussion of living wills.
A living will is simply a legal document in which the wishes of the
individual concerning their life and death are outlined.
Everyone should have one but apparently only 1 in 3 or 4 do. I have
to admit that I don’t – but, spurred by Terri’s
fate, I intend to have one very soon. But making the decisions upon
which a living will would be based is not a totally simple matter.
I will use my own case, not to suggest in any way what your thoughts
or decisions should be, but simple as an illustration of the kind
of considerations that need to be addressed.
Last year I was diagnosed with lymphoma which was treated by chemotherapy
and later a variety of alternative therapies (see my column in the
January/February issue). The experience certainly led me to some serious
thinking about life and death issues.
I believe that we are spiritual beings having a human experience –
not the other way round. As a spiritual being, therefore, I have a
body, on loan as it were. The body is a bit like a car. It gives me
the illusion that I, a spiritual being, need it to do things, such
as move around and communicate. In other words the body is simply
a tool. In itself it has no great value – a bunch of chemicals
worth maybe a few dollars. Like a car, the body needs to be maintained.
And, like a car, at some point it ceases to serve its purpose and
needs to be replaced or discarded. The decisions regarding the maintenance
of the body are similar to those we make regarding the maintenance
of a car. Particularly relevant here is the question, “Is it
worth fixing?” The answer as far as maintenance of the body
goes is usually “yes.” It is easy to replace or trade
in a car. Not so with the body. However, there comes a point where
the body is no longer a useful tool. Should the individual be “forced”
into keeping it? I don’t believe anyone other than the individual
him or herself has the right to decide.
My body currently works and, although not a perfect “tool,”
is good enough for most practical purposes. I can enjoy time spent
with my wife, Dee; I can talk to people; I can meditate; I can write;
I can take walks... in other words the quality of my life is pretty
good!
But what if I couldn’t? Let’s suppose I were incapable
of doing any of the above, yet I were still alive. Would that be a
quality of life worth maintaining? Sounds pretty much like Terri’s
condition?
Personally my answer would be “no.”
I don’t believe that one should commit suicide, nor am I supporter
of euthanasia. However, that does not mean that one should go to artificial
lengths to prolong life. The difficulty with today’s medical
advances is defining “artificial lengths.”
For me “artificial lengths,” if terminal or seriously
ill, would include: the use without my consent of a feeding tube;
artificial lungs; a respirator; and resuscitation in case of heart
failure. This list is not complete but should be sufficient to indicate
my intentions. I would stress that this is my list. Your list may
well be very different.
The actual mechanics of completing a living will are not that complicated.
There have been enough articles recently on the subject! Useful web
sites (per the Los Angeles Times) are:
www.partnershipforcaring.org; www.agingwithdignity.org; www.healthdirectives.org;
www.uslivingwillregistry.com; www.pgrace.org; www.lifepath-hospice.org;
and www.thehospice.org.
I found the Aging With Dignity site
particularly useful. For $5 one can order their “Five Wishes”
document (which is valid in Florida). It offers in layman’s
terms the opportunity to specify how comfortable you want to be,
how you define life support, even how you want to be treated: would
you like visitors from church? music in the room? your bedside surrounded
by pictures? One can also order advance directive forms from Partnership
for Caring. I was, however, unable to access their site –
maybe they are swamped with inquiries!
The important thing is not to put it off, but to do it. At the very
least talk things over with close family members and put your wishes
in writing; get your statement notarized and then make sure that
it is readily available.
The issues concerning living wills are not going to go away. In
fact they are likely to become more complex.
Let’s take an extreme example – which, although extreme,
is likely to become a reality within the next 50 to 100 years. Suppose
it becomes possible to freeze someone who is alive and later bring
them back to life for treatment (when a cure for a particular disease
has been found). What would your choice be?
Or another extreme example. Let’s suppose that it becomes
possible to transplant a brain. Someone has Alzheimer’s. Should
they be entitled to get a brain transplant?
Questions that pose interesting moral questions!
And then there’s the practical issue. Who should pay for it
all? Medical costs, with the increased sophistication of medical
techniques, are escalating. At what point will we say ”no”
to a procedure simply because it costs too much?
Who was paying to keep Terri alive? I know there was some kind of
malpractice settlement but that money must have been used up long
ago. Even if the parents were prepared to pay, what should have
happened if they had died? Who would pay then? The taxpayer? And
is that money well spent compared to money spent on prevention?
I see very little discussion of this in the emotionally charged
rhetoric of most media commentators and politicians.
Somewhere we as individuals have to draw the line between what constitutes
reasonable measures to prolong life and what constitutes unreasonable
measures. And as a society we have to decide the same thing. Let’s
help the politicians and lawmakers by letting them know what we
think.
David Findlay can be contacted at: (727) 278-7655 (leave a message);
or
|
