This law seems innocuous, but quite the opposite: a Trojan horse. The "trick" is in the definitions used, significantly different to the common use of terms. The law is not restricted to avoid therapeutic cruelty (it would be a good thing), but requires a physician to perform passive euthanasia, which is what they did to Terry Schiavo and Eluana Englaro, so that we understand: BLS withdraw non-therapeutic as drinking and eating, to die.
If we study the law, then we come to a deliberate confusion, which disguises the bitterness law against what is not. It is precisely in the definitions are a prelude to the law and are wrong:
"f) Limitation of treatment: Withdrawal or non-establishment of a support measure VITAL or any other intervention, given the poor prognosis patient in terms of quantity and quality of future life, is, according to health professionals involved, futile, only helps to prolong the time a clinical situation lacks a reasonable expectation of improvement.
g) MEASURE OF LIFE SUPPORT: health intervention aimed at maintaining a patient's vital signs, regardless of whether the ACT or non-therapeutic intervention on the disease or biological process, which threatens the life of the patient. "
Thus "withholding treatment" is defined as a tortuous effort limitation necesria NO TREATMENT. This is a contradiction in terms, "but has a very clear purpose: not to distinguish between what are the therapeutic measures or extraordinary keep a patient alive (drugs, mechanical ventilation, parenteral nutrition) and ordinary care or ordinary measures such as the feed to the patient or give him a drink. And you get to demonize a measure such as watering, no less than the following definition:
i) therapeutic futility: A situation in which a person found in the terminal or dying, you start or maintain SIOPORTE MEASURES VITAL or other interventions that lack of clinical utility, which only prolong their biological life, with no real chance of improvement or recovery, being therefore subject to limitation. "
So just by squaring the circle: it is not even therapeutic, is treated as "therapeutic obstinacy." Therapeutic obstinacy would therefore give water to a terminal patient.
It's amazing how it has diverted attention from many professionals, how it has "gold pill" into thinking that this law allows the terminal sedation and analgesia but runs the risk of shortening life (which in itself is ethically acceptable and common practice), and instead the problem, very serious, terrible, unheard of anywhere else-is the law.
But there is another dismal
"L) Palliative sedation: Administration of drugs, dosages and combinations required to reduce the consciousness of a terminally ill patient or agony, to relieve symptoms adequately one or more refractory explicit informed consent on the terms set out in Law. "
These are ambiguous definitions that allow it. He identified two "stop", and introduced as the first order to "reduce the conscience." One thing is to reduce awareness and other sedate. Sedar is to respond to restlessness or anxiety, using a sedative or anxiolytic action, which is the same. At higher doses, the effect is hypnotic, and can be reached drug induce coma. This is "reduce consciousness" ... to the extreme, far beyond sedation. As written, the law would consider as "palliative sedation" for a man who learns he has lung cancer and will have four months of life, and which says: "I want you to sleep as long as I left and not learn anything, because it makes me uneasy. "
also uses the ambiguous term "terminal sedation" when more accurate would be "palliative sedation in agony," clearly to extend not only to the time when death is very close, but the whole, against as recommended by the Palliative Care Society (SECPAL): "terminal sedation is defined as the deliberate administration of drugs to achieve relief, unattainable with other measures of physical pain and / or psychologically, by lowering expected deep enough irreversible consciousness in a patient whose death is very close and with their explicit consent, implicit or delegate. " I also omitted the "unattainable with other measures." In short, this is ambiguous and misuses and will so far: with this in hand, any patient can ask their doctors to induce a coma and will not give or drink until I die, or risk being defendants, if they do, of "therapeutic stubbornly, and unable even to refuse to do so for personal and professional conscience. Unprecedented.
But how many months you have to be living with this man?. In palliative care, is generally regarded as "terminal condition" a life expectancy of less than six months: http://www.secpal.com/guiacp/index.php?acc=dos
"1. Presence of disease advanced, progressive, incurable.
2. Lack of a reasonable chance of response to specific treatment.
3. Presence of numerous problems or severe symptoms, multiple, multifactorial and changeable.
4. Great emotional impact on patient family and treatment team, closely related to the presence, explicitly or not, death.
5. Prognosis of less than 6 months. "
How understand the law? Here:
" o) TERMINAL STATUS: The presence of advanced disease, incurable and progressive, with no reasonable chance of response to specific treatment, with a forecast limited life and in which severe symptoms and changing concur that require intensive specific interventions by health professionals
.
"Limited" ... without limit! But who does not have a "limited life prognosis? That indefinción, what it does in fact remove the limitation of time and let the conditions have "advanced disease, incurable and progressive, with no reasonable chance of response to specific treatment in severe symptoms who attend and changing, but the patient can live for two years, four, etc.
In conclusion, the legislator has manipulated the definitions to make a law tortious, fooling everyone. Reading the information that is on this law, had almost reached the view that the fund does not cover anything new, it was a law to the gallery. Tremendous error! This law is a bomb that demonized the most basic care to the patient's life and allows terminal inducing a coma and passive euthanasia to any patient, perhaps even without knowing what these definitions tort down, have not treated with "therapeutic obstinacy" when you have an incurable disease.
0 comments:
Post a Comment