Read Discussion: Respond To Question Below - The Living Will
Read Discussion Respond To Question Belowthe Living Will Is A Relat
Read Discussion & Respond to question below. The living will is a relatively new doctrine and instrument in the English Common Law. The living will is a creation of necessity that came about due to the huge and unforeseeable medical advances that occurred in the 20th century due primarily to technological breakthroughs. Prior to this time, the common law allowed an individual to make her medical decisions only during such time as she was physically competent to do so. If and when such competency ended, the law imposed a strict protocol of persons to whom the duty of decision-making would fall.
No allowances were made for what we now call advance directives. Respond to Question Below: Write words. Using APA Style. Is this an improvement of the law or do living wills and advance directives create more problems than they solve? Please use a concrete example to support your argument.
Paper For Above instruction
The advent of living wills and advance directives represents a significant evolution in medical and legal practice, aiming to respect patient autonomy and improve decision-making processes regarding end-of-life care. While these legal instruments are designed to address the limitations of traditional common law approaches, they also introduce certain complexities and potential dilemmas. This essay explores whether living wills and advance directives are improvements or whether they create more problems than they resolve, supported by concrete examples.
Historically, the common law provided minimal framework for end-of-life decision-making, primarily because patients were considered incapacitated once they lost competency, and decisions then fell upon family members or courts, which might not accurately reflect the patient’s wishes (Bach & Haynes, 2001). The introduction of living wills and advance directives has been seen as a response to this deficiency, safeguarding individual autonomy and ensuring that patients' preferences are honored, even when they are unable to communicate those wishes.
One notable example illustrating the benefits of advance directives occurs in the case of Karen Ann Quinlan in the 1970s. Quinlan's parents faced the dilemma of whether to continue life support after her persistent coma. Her case sparked legal and societal debates about a patient's right to refuse treatment. Had a living will been in place, her wishes might have been clearer, potentially avoiding prolonged and emotionally taxing legal battles and medical interventions aimed at sustaining life artificially (Roth, 2004).
However, the implementation of living wills and advance directives is not without problems. One challenge arises from the ambiguity and rigidity of some directives. For example, a patient might specify a desire not to undergo extraordinary measures, but as medical technology advances, what was once considered extraordinary may become standard care. A concrete example is the use of artificial nutrition and hydration. Patients who refuse feeding tubes may encounter situations where healthcare providers and family members disagree on what constitutes appropriate care, leading to disputes and ethical dilemmas (Sullivan et al., 2007).
Furthermore, advance directives depend heavily on patients’ ability to accurately anticipate future medical scenarios, which is inherently uncertain. Patients may not foresee all possible complications or technological developments, leading to directives that are either too vague or outdated upon their execution. For instance, a patient might refuse artificial ventilation, but if a new life-sustaining technology emerges that the patient did not anticipate, their directive may be rendered irrelevant or inconsistent with current medical possibilities (Crawford, 2010).
Critics argue that living wills and advance directives might also create conflicts among families, healthcare teams, and legal systems. Disputes over the interpretation of directives can delay crucial medical decisions, sometimes resulting in prolonged suffering or inappropriate treatments. For instance, a family member may insist on whether to withdraw life support despite a valid directive, leading to ethical conflicts that require legal intervention (Sulmasy et al., 2012).
Despite these challenges, the overall impact of living wills and advance directives can be viewed as an improvement over the previous passive approach, which often ignored individual preferences altogether. They promote respect for autonomy and personalized care, aligning medical actions with patient values and beliefs. Properly drafted and regularly updated directives, coupled with clear communication between patients and healthcare providers, can mitigate many issues and enhance end-of-life care quality (Dresser, 2013).
In conclusion, while living wills and advance directives are not devoid of problems, they constitute an important advancement in law and medicine by promoting autonomy and personalized treatment. Their effectiveness depends on ongoing education, clear guidelines, and ethical sensitivity to adapt to new technologies and social values. They are an improvement overall, but continuous refinement and awareness are necessary to prevent and address the complexities they introduce.
References
Bach, J. P., & Haynes, B. P. (2001). Ethical issues in end-of-life care. American Family Physician, 63(3), 435–440.
Crawford, D. W. (2010). Advance directives and medical decision-making. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 16(6), 595–601.
Dresser, R. (2013). Recognizing patient autonomy: The importance of advance directives. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(1), 63–66.
Medical Law Review, 12(1), 45–60.
Sullivan, J. M., et al. (2007). Ethical dilemmas associated with do-not-resuscitate orders. Critical Care Medicine, 35(8), 1894–1899.
Sulmasy, D. P., et al. (2012). Communication and ethical conflicts regarding end-of-life decisions. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 15(4), 427–433.