US Palliative Care Academy Drops Opposition to Assisted Suicide

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/8/07 | Gudrun Schultz

[wagglebee]

GLENVIEW, Illinois, March 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The leading US authority on palliative care has adopted a position of “studied neutrality” on the issue of physician-assisted suicide, following on the heels of a similar statement released by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association in November.

The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine released a policy statement following approval by the AAHPM board of directors on Feb.14, 2007.

“The AAHPM recognizes that deep disagreement persists regarding the morality of PAD,” the document states. “Sincere, compassionate, morally conscientious individuals stand on either side of this debate. AAHPM takes a position of ‘studied neutrality’ on the subject of whether PAD should be legally regulated or prohibited, believing its members should instead continue to strive to find the proper response to those patients whose suffering becomes intolerable despite the best possible palliative care.”

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said the AAHPM’s new position statement plays directly into the strategy of the Right to Die societies working to legalize assisted suicide in the United States.

“Last year I attended the World-Wide Federation of Right to Die Societies conference in Toronto,” Schadenberg wrote in a press statement. “They explained that they had two focuses: One was to change the language--through polling and focus groups, they found that the word suicide had negative connotations for people. The second was to get leading medical associations to take a position of ‘studied neutrality’.”

“Last November the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association (CHPCA) took a similar position of ‘studied neutrality’, In 2005 the British Medical Association took a position of ‘studied neutrality’ but that position was reversed at their Annual General Meeting in August 2006.”

Schadenberg pointed out that the AAHPM’s adoption of the language preferred by assisted-suicide activists indicates a growing acceptance of the pro-death movement—activist groups have pushed for the use of the term “Physician-Assisted Death” to replace “Physician-Assisted Suicide” to improve the image of the practice with the general public.

The AAHPM defended the switch in terminology by saying the term PAD “captures the essence of the process in a more accurately descriptive fashion than the more emotionally charged designation Physician-assisted Suicide.”

Leading bioethics critic Wesley J. Smith condemned the AAHPM’s statement as an “utter abdication of professional responsibility,” in a blog posting at wesleyjsmith.com.

“Assisted suicide is controversial, which is precisely why the guidance of the Academy on this crucial matter is needed. After all, what good is a position paper about uncontroversial matters? That takes no courage or leadership, which [are] precisely the qualities shown by the AAHPM.”


See AAHPM statement:
http://www.aahpm.org/positions/suicide.html

To express concerns, contact:

American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine
4700 W. Lake Avenue
Glenview, IL 60025-1485
847/375-4712
Fax 877/734-8671
E-mail: info@aahpm.org

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Canadian Hospice Association Slammed for Abandoning Opposition to Euthanasia
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07010909.html

[wagglebee]

“They explained that they had two focuses: One was to change the language--through polling and focus groups, they found that the word suicide had negative connotations for people. The second was to get leading medical associations to take a position of ‘studied neutrality’.”

"Changing the language" has always been the left's method of choice, and once they make inroads on that, they usually resort to violence.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[BykrBayb]

"...believing its members should instead continue to strive to find the proper response to those patients whose suffering becomes intolerable despite the best possible palliative care."

That is not a position of “studied neutrality.” That is telling its members they should find an alternative to palliative care. In other words, "kill the patient."

[wagglebee]

That is telling its members they should find an alternative to palliative care. In other words, "kill the patient."

This always seems to be the conclusion of such groups.

[BykrBayb]

They start with their conclusions, and work their way up to their excuses. They start with the premise that all useless eaters should be killed, then they start creating excuses for that agenda.

[wagglebee]

EXACTLY!

When you have already decided the answer you want, it is easy to manipulate the questions.

[LibFreeOrDie]

George Soros funded The Project on Death in America (PDIA) of the Open Society Institute. Susan Block, M.D., was director of the PDIA Faculty Scholars Program. Susan D. Block, MD is now a Director At Large for the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/pdia/news/grants_20010702

http://www.aahpm.org/about/board.html

(George must be very happy...)

[Captain Rhino]

The "studied neutrality" announced by the US Palliative Care Academy is political correctness at its worst. It equivocates palliative care and physician assisted death. But they are not the same thing and should not be confused as such. The leadership of US Palliative Care Academy has done a disservice to its members by failing to clearly distinguish and vigorously defended the honorable and compassionate services they provide to the dying from confusion with PAD.

There is an important ethical distinction between palliative care - whose primary focus is patient comfort in the final stages of a terminal disease and physician-assisted death (PAD) - whose primary focus is ending the patient's life, whether or not they may be dying. In entering into this discussion, it is important to note that the ethical practice of palliative care does permit the administration of massive doses of strong pain killers (like morphine) to ease patient suffering even when it is well known that such doses will most likely shorten their life significantly. This can cause confusion because one (palliative care) outwardly looks like the other (PAD) because both seem to involve overdosing the patient with heavy doses of medicine. However, intent provides an important ethical distinction. In palliative care, the focus is on easing the pain, not on ending the patient's life. If too much painkiller is being administered too aggressively, it is no longer palliative care.

If fact, a PAD protocol might not even include painkillers. This is because PAD is really only concerned with having a physician assist the distressed person with ending their life. Death from painkiller overdose may take too long to be efficient and (gasp!) might not even be reliable enough to cause death. A quick, efficient death whenever the requester wants it, that is the objective. In short, PAD is physician assisted suicide (PAS), not palliative care.

The switch to the term "physician-assisted death" is just the sophistic trick to get away from the word "suicide" because, as the article noted, suicide has a very negative connotation. Suicide is not only morally reprehensible, it is also illegal. But the offender, if they are competent, escapes punishment - at least Earthly punishment - because they are dead. But to assist in a suicide, well, that is, at minimum, a conspiracy to commit an illegal death. And depending on how much pressure/coercion/persuasion is applied, it may even be murder. And no physician wants to be accused of that - especially with the slowly dying Dr. Kevorkian standing as such an excellent example of what will happen when you push the envelope just a little too aggressively.

Sure, the PAD advocates will swear that they never, ever intend to use PAD for anything except "those patients whose suffering becomes intolerable despite the best possible palliative care." But the problem is that is what they say TODAY. And, no doubt, many of them mean it.

But, tomorrow...

Tomorrow, the aggressive advocates for PAD will be pushing for its availability for people who are just really uncomfortable. The day after, the push will be to include depressed adults who want to end their lives - I mean, they are adults, after all? Right? Then come the depressed teenagers. Before long you have physicians killing patients involuntarily because they have had enough "life" and they need to move along. Then it will be very sick babies and, pretty soon, it becomes any difficult ailment, whether or not it's terminal. Then, perhaps it will be you when you become an inconvenient case to the attending physician.

PAS/PAD philosophical construct is a major ledge on the ethical slippery slope leading downward to a complete breakdown in the trust that is supposed to exist between patient and physician; a trust that is already under considerable strain because of too many instances of physician, medical staff, and hospital perfidy and mendacity. Palliative care helps keep us from sliding further down that slope. Confusing it in any way with PAS/PAD is a travesty.

[T'wit]

>> They explained that they had two focuses: One was to change the language...

"The corruption of man is followed by corruption of language." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson. Not that we needed any further proof that "right to die" activists are sick in their minds, hearts and -- especially -- souls.

It works the other way, too. Twisted language corrupts thought. How then will we find our way to The Word?

[Gondring]

Oh yes, it's such a slippery slope to encourage physicians and caregivers to follow their patients' wishes. Heaven forbid we have doctors ignore what the patient wants and just institute what he thinks is best! </sarc>

Sorry, but the disregard of patient wishes is the true slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia.

Suicide is not only morally reprehensible, it is also illegal.

Suicide is not listed as a crime in any state.

"Do you imagine that I repine at Providence or curse my creation, because I go out of life, and put a period to a being, which, were it to continue, would render me miserable?" --David Hume

[Gondring]

Well, should I lie and call myself a Pro-Lifer, instead of Anti-Abortionist?

[Gondring]

Heaven forbid we don't have doctors ignore...

[T'wit]

>> Well, should I lie and call myself a Pro-Lifer, instead of Anti-Abortionist?

I don't recommend that anyone lie, but if you really want to, why don't you claim that you are making sense?

[darkangel82]

Sounds like a certain German regime from the 1930s and 40s, doesn't it?

[Gondring]

Good point about corruption of language. It's like those who are in favor of the death penalty yet against abortion claiming to be "Pro-Life" instead of "Anti-Abortion"...twisting the language.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[T'wit]

>> It's like those who are in favor of the death penalty yet against abortion claiming to be "Pro-Life" instead of "Anti-Abortion"...twisting the language.

Thank you for restating your position to make it coherent.

However, the point itself is incoherent. The death penalty is imposed against persons who, under the law, have forfeited their right to life by willful crimes. Consequently, it is not in intellectual or moral conflict with a view that upholds the right to life.

Furthermore, it is widely and correctly believed that the death penalty for murder is a deterrent to future murders, and thus actually reduces the number of lives lost in violation of the right to life.

Unborn babies are morally blameless, so no case can be made that their right to life may be forfeited for crimes. The pro-aborts can only argue that fetuses are not human, and that of course is what they do argue.

"Pro-life" is a different term and larger in scope than being merely "anti-abortionist." It supports the right to life of everyone of any age, provided they themselves have not forfeited their right to life by a capital crime. We who defended Terri Schiavo's right to life call ourselves pro-life. Obviously the term "anti-abortionist" did not apply. Terri Schiavo's constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments were violated when she was put to death by an American court despite being guilty of no crime.

[Gondring]

Thank you for restating your position to make it coherent.

You're welcome.

Unfortunately, I have not had the time to put together a response to you, but I very much would like to do so when I can. I believe this is a very important topic, as are all rights.

[T'wit]

>> I have not had the time to put together a response to you

Take all the time you like. However, on rereading, I believe my few remarks above are sufficient and clear, so I have no wish to extend the discussion.

[Gondring]

If you would, please re-examine whether you are pro-Life or pro-Right to Life. I believe you are actually the former, and I am the latter.

[T'wit]

One can comfortably espouse both pro-life and pro-right to life views without contradiction.

The rights of life, liberty and property are cut from the same cloth. If you reject capital punishment by the state as a violation of the right to life, logically you should reject all other actions by the state that violate the associated rights of liberty and property. This is a pure anarchist position, and intellectually attractive for its unwavering adherence to principle.

[Gondring]

The rights of life, liberty and property are cut from the same cloth.

If you reject capital punishment by the state as a violation of the right to life, logically you should reject all other actions by the state that violate the associated rights of liberty and property.

Agreed. And that would mean that imprisonment for crime would be just as bad (violation of right to liberty). But "inalienable rights" does not mean they cannot be forfeited via criminal acts--that is, they CAN. So I take it you are not against capital punishment, so perhaps you are not wholly pro-Life-at-All-Costs. :-)

Please consider some other things...

The freedom to express one's political views (right of free speech) is something that is so precious and fundamental to our republic, do you not agree? Likewise, the right to worship as you choose, without government interference, no?

Hope you don't mind this format of replies--I'm working well into the night on urgent reports and it helps to be able to respond in brief bits when I need a break.

[T'wit]

>> The freedom to express one's political views (right of free speech) is something that is so precious and fundamental to our republic, do you not agree?

What "Republic"? Under anarchism, there is no republic to interfere with free speech. Neither are there any politics to express one's views about.