{"id":128183,"date":"2016-10-14T16:32:08","date_gmt":"2016-10-14T20:32:08","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=128183"},"modified":"2016-10-17T10:12:18","modified_gmt":"2016-10-17T14:12:18","slug":"a-nurse-practitioner-reveals-the-hidden-dangers-of-physician-assisted-suicide-and-colorados-prop-106","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/a-nurse-practitioner-reveals-the-hidden-dangers-of-physician-assisted-suicide-and-colorados-prop-106\/","title":{"rendered":"A nurse practitioner reveals the hidden dangers of physician-assisted suicide and Colorado’s Prop 106"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician prescribes lethal drugs to a patient so that the patient can self-administer the drugs to bring about his own death. According to a 2015 Gallup Poll<\/a>, 58% of Americans support physician-assisted suicide (PAS). That is up from 51% in 2013. Among adults between the ages of 18 and 34 years the numbers are even higher at 81%. There are now four states where PAS\u00a0is legal: California, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Montana does not have regulatory framework for PAS; however, built into Montana\u2019s \u201cRights of the Terminally Ill Act\u201d of 2009, are protections or immunities for physicians and\/or advanced practice nurses in regard to withholding or withdrawing treatment.<\/p>\n

As a healthcare provider, I find these trends disturbing.<\/p>\n

In November of this year, voters in Colorado, where I live, will be voting on Proposition 106 (referred to as Prop 106), Colorado\u2019s \u201cEnd-of-Life Options Act.\u201d Supporters have raised<\/a> approximately $5 million; opponents $1.8 million. It is vital that healthcare providers, and the public in general, be educated on the gravity of this decision and the devastating impact it will have on societies\u2019 most vulnerable if it passes (e.g. the disabled, elderly and depressed). I’d like to present a\u00a0discussion on issues surrounding PAS in general and more specifically Prop 106.<\/p>\n

PAS violates the trust between patient and provider as well as the Hippocratic Oath<\/a>. <\/strong><\/p>\n

Physician-assisted suicide brings into question the physician\u2019s integrity and commitment to do no harm and to act in the patient\u2019s best interest. There are also concerns for perverted incentives as PAS\u00a0makes it easier for abuse within a broken healthcare environment; as insurance companies stealthily replace genuine compassion and supportive care services, such as palliative care, with cost-cutting. We have seen this in Oregon<\/a> and California<\/a>. As Ryan Anderson<\/a>, PhD, from The Heritage Foundation states, \u201cPhysician-assisted suicide offers a cheap, quick fix in a world of increasingly scarce health care resources.\u201d For healthcare providers, this could lead to unexpected mandates overriding how they care for their patients or their patients\u2019 best interest. An often cited quote of theologian Richard Neuhaus<\/a> states, \u201cWhat is permitted will eventually become obligatory.\u201d<\/p>\n

PAS places the most vulnerable at risk<\/a> (the depressed, disabled, elderly, children). <\/strong><\/p>\n

Historically, we have seen safeguards erode once PAS is in place. The Netherlands<\/a> is a\u00a0prime example for us to examine. Several decades ago, in the 70s and 80s, PAS advocates in the Netherlands justified PAS by stating it would be limited to a number of terminally ill patients experiencing unbearable suffering. Up until 2001, only adults had access to PAS (though it was still technically a crime), but in 2001, it was made legal, and the laws\u00a0even allowed\u00a0children 12-16 years old to have access to PAS with parental consent. As of 2002, PAS is no longer limited to those with a terminal illness, but also includes psychological suffering. In individuals over the age of 70, PAS is permitted if they are \u201ctired of living.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n