End-Of-Life Debate: An Outsider"s Contribution To The Sinkhole
I attended the Health Care Leader's Dinner Debate for the Summit on Sustainable Health and Health Care, presented by The Conference Board of Canada and held at the Toronto Marriott Downtown Eaton Centre Hotel on Tuesday October 30th 2012.
The discussion was titled: "End-of-Life Decisions Belong to the Individual.
" A poll recorded 90% of participants voting "yes" to the debate opening question "Do end-of-life decisions belong to the individuals.
" This figure dropped to 82% at debate end.
I posit that these results speak to the unequivocal subjectivity of the question and will attempt to argue against such an individualistic system.
The topic tackled issues surrounding individual and social good.
Both sides agreed that death is a necessary conversation of life, and policies inclusive of life extension cannot be exclusive of life termination.
Differences in use of language was indicative of the difficulty in unifying communication for mutual benefit, so that understandably what was agreed upon were the differences.
The difficulty with individualism lies in its strength, which is the personal experience determining quality of life.
Medical and social factors render a close-ended discourse based on statistical evidence and lived experience so that one is unable to challenge what another is experiencing, let alone decide how s/he should die.
Focus is turned to the end-state while the individual is still alive suggesting that where Science's miracles end, the only choice is how to conclude the person's life.
Social good is rightly uneasy about the factors that constitute diminished quality of life and suitable candidate consideration, however it ignores existing realms of medical advancement in informed decision-making, forcing many an individual to fight for the right to die while still alive and suggesting to the individual that s/he has "not suffered enough".
It appears that in situations whereby science is unable to provide alternatives, the choice is to either control the end by taking on the role as agent, or control the circumstance by taking ownership of the illness.
I would like to invite more pathways to this discussion so that control as invited by science's conclusions (terminal) does not compete with control as invited by life's inclusions (illness).
It is humans after all who make and perfect these medical advancements so the two cannot be considered mutually exclusive.
There are many different voices to this story, not just the patient and the doctor's, and while it is the patient that lives the experience, several generations and backgrounds are intricately woven in the decisions we make behind closed doors and in public court rooms.
Our children are watching us, as they should, for they are both social participants in our global village, and the next generation of patients and doctors.
As language and terminology form parameters to our questions, I suggest an approach toward this topic that is first highly critical of our question formation, and information sources.
Different questions need to be formed, so that other answers may materialize.
As opposed to starting and ending with prognosis, why not look at how we perceive and construct the idea of finality.
Instead of arguing the merits of autonomy, what are our changing and stagnant views on the role and scope of community.
Granted the debate was specific to health care leaders, and in different circles the question is argued within its respective boundaries.
I am encouraging a merging of these scattered sectors, for as earlier stated, it is not just the patient or doctor who are affected by the final decision.
I am against a "what's best" approach considering the validity of each argument and futility in satisfactorily answering each grievance which results in a sinkhole argument.
I propose that we look at and answer questions on our own perception and interpretation of what constitutes quality, dignity, life and death, as the individuals who make up the establishments that legalize or criminalize end-of-life decisions, tarred or propelled by scientific data and our lived experiences.
If we increase the amount, depth and variety of knowledge, we better equip ourselves for the future in the children we nurture to become health care leaders.
The discussion was titled: "End-of-Life Decisions Belong to the Individual.
" A poll recorded 90% of participants voting "yes" to the debate opening question "Do end-of-life decisions belong to the individuals.
" This figure dropped to 82% at debate end.
I posit that these results speak to the unequivocal subjectivity of the question and will attempt to argue against such an individualistic system.
The topic tackled issues surrounding individual and social good.
Both sides agreed that death is a necessary conversation of life, and policies inclusive of life extension cannot be exclusive of life termination.
Differences in use of language was indicative of the difficulty in unifying communication for mutual benefit, so that understandably what was agreed upon were the differences.
The difficulty with individualism lies in its strength, which is the personal experience determining quality of life.
Medical and social factors render a close-ended discourse based on statistical evidence and lived experience so that one is unable to challenge what another is experiencing, let alone decide how s/he should die.
Focus is turned to the end-state while the individual is still alive suggesting that where Science's miracles end, the only choice is how to conclude the person's life.
Social good is rightly uneasy about the factors that constitute diminished quality of life and suitable candidate consideration, however it ignores existing realms of medical advancement in informed decision-making, forcing many an individual to fight for the right to die while still alive and suggesting to the individual that s/he has "not suffered enough".
It appears that in situations whereby science is unable to provide alternatives, the choice is to either control the end by taking on the role as agent, or control the circumstance by taking ownership of the illness.
I would like to invite more pathways to this discussion so that control as invited by science's conclusions (terminal) does not compete with control as invited by life's inclusions (illness).
It is humans after all who make and perfect these medical advancements so the two cannot be considered mutually exclusive.
There are many different voices to this story, not just the patient and the doctor's, and while it is the patient that lives the experience, several generations and backgrounds are intricately woven in the decisions we make behind closed doors and in public court rooms.
Our children are watching us, as they should, for they are both social participants in our global village, and the next generation of patients and doctors.
As language and terminology form parameters to our questions, I suggest an approach toward this topic that is first highly critical of our question formation, and information sources.
Different questions need to be formed, so that other answers may materialize.
As opposed to starting and ending with prognosis, why not look at how we perceive and construct the idea of finality.
Instead of arguing the merits of autonomy, what are our changing and stagnant views on the role and scope of community.
Granted the debate was specific to health care leaders, and in different circles the question is argued within its respective boundaries.
I am encouraging a merging of these scattered sectors, for as earlier stated, it is not just the patient or doctor who are affected by the final decision.
I am against a "what's best" approach considering the validity of each argument and futility in satisfactorily answering each grievance which results in a sinkhole argument.
I propose that we look at and answer questions on our own perception and interpretation of what constitutes quality, dignity, life and death, as the individuals who make up the establishments that legalize or criminalize end-of-life decisions, tarred or propelled by scientific data and our lived experiences.
If we increase the amount, depth and variety of knowledge, we better equip ourselves for the future in the children we nurture to become health care leaders.
Source...