how has innovation improved the delivery of palliative care?

Answer

Utilization of Euthanasia in the Palliative Care for Old People with Terminal Cancer

This essay illustrates how old people with terminal cancer are benefiting from euthanasia as the most effective palliative care for their condition. The old people would benefit from this initiative because a majority of this population hardly recovers from terminal illnesses.  According to Van der Geest and Satalkar (2019), more than 67% of old people with terminal cancer never recover. With this, many of them prefer self-chosen death as the only alternative to end their misery. Regardless, the limitations established by the policies of end-of-life decisions (EOL) have made the implementation of this strategy rather challenging. Despite the hindering factors, euthanasia as a hospital-based palliative care would contribute to enhancing the quality of life, avoidance caregiver guilt, and supporting end of life decisions for old people with terminal cancer.

Solutions offered by Euthanasia

Enhances the quality of life

Euthanasia improves the quality of care before a patient dies. Despite critics arguing that healthcare providers’ involvement in EOL cases is ineffective, several scholars have proved that the efforts of the proposed strategy are quite essential. Owing to the emergence of several EOL cases concerning old people with terminal cancer, medical institutions have assimilated certain legislation that controls the EOL cases. One of the rules amended by healthcare institutions is the support to a patient’s daily life, which requires medical practitioners to physically, emotionally as well as psychologically support dying patients. In line with this kind of care, healthcare providers are required to give the dying patients spiritual care, bathing, mouth care, hair care, pressure care, among others (Lavoie et al., 2016). Nevertheless, nurses are required to regularly exercise intervention practices on patients with cancer such as assessing the level of pain, provision of necessary medication, and setting up a patient’s discharge. In most cases, this type of care is hardly imposed on patients suffering from other ailments. The associated application of these approaches affects treatment decisions made by medical practitioners in the sense that a patient’s end-of-life decision is considered first. A practical example is when a patient with terminal cancer suggests that he or she desires to die in a calm environment. Following this suggestion, healthcare providers have to ensure that they provide a situation or surroundings with limited monitoring equipment, or whose environment is relatively calm for the specific patient to feel at peace as he or she approaches the end of life (Bernheim & Raus 2017). Similarly, when healthcare practitioners provide sufficient data concerning a patient’s current condition to the terminally ill patients, the expected treatment interventions as well as the impact of the interventions, and productive care model would be achieved. In retrospect, facilitating an effective communication system aids in coordinating treatment plans. Since old people with terminal cancer are set to die, receiving this kind of treatment gives them hope and gratitude that people still care of his/her well-being.

Avoidance of caregiver guilt

Another advantage of euthanasia in palliative care for old individuals with terminal cancer is that it reduces the guilt as well as shame that patients have to their caregivers. In most cases, old people with terminal cancer tend to feel as if they are a burden to their families. These emotions establish the chances of ruined relationships since it is rather natural for them to push their loved ones away to help them avoid any form of pain. Accepting euthanasia might not be the best option in some circles. However, it can establish the best option for the transitory time that every terminally ill patient experiences (Bernheim & Raus 2017). The main impact of the end-of-life controls, as well as regulations, is to ascertain that old and terminally ill patients accept and appreciate living with their conditions every day of their end-of-life period. Initially, scholars and healthcare practitioners have been combining their efforts to guarantee that medical facilities together with the staff are competent enough to enhance the value of life in any setting regardless of the defined life phase. In different studies, scholars have been able to assume that all individuals diagnosed with terminal ailments develop physical, mental as well as emotional issues such as depression, powerlessness, vulnerability, dependency, helplessness, and worthlessness. The proposed traits have negative effects on a patient’s health, considering that it reduces their life span. These emotional effects have a direct link to the general well-being of patients. The more demoralize a patient would be, the higher the chances of him/her succumbing to the ailment. Under such circumstances, healthcare practitioners assume the role of ensuring that such a patient conforms to his or her condition as well as accept the presented and the future situation (Lavoie et al., 2016). As medical practitioners provide physical and psychological treatment to a terminally ill patient, acceptance becomes the best solution for both the patient and the respective family members. In line with the training sessions, a cognitive bond is established between the healthcare providers and patients. Terminally ill patients at this stage would finally resort to appreciating the value of their life together with the efforts of the doctors and nurses towards making their end-of-life period as comfortable as possible. Eventually, patients will have confidence in the intervention decisions made by the medical doctor leading to an effective transition .process by the patient as well as the family. 

More Control over Final Decision of Life

The end of an individual’s life marks the beginning of a financial expedition for patients and their family members. Old people with terminal cancer tend to spend some significant amount of capital to sustain the type of care they will be receiving. In addition to this, the cumulative debts cannot be cleared at death (Kaminska & Nazarko 2017). As a result, a family member of the patients is forced to sell their assets to clear the medical bills. In most cases, it can take many years to settle complex financial issues. However, when euthanasia is introduced in the conversation for an individual with terminal cancer, planning for the transition could be easier for both the medical institution and the family members of the patient. By having absolute control over the last decision of life, the physical and emotional toll of a terminal ailment can be reduced for every person involved (Kaminska & Nazarko 2017). In most cases, this proposition is considered a relief for the individual who is suffering but the most overlooked factor is the apparent benefits for both the medical institutions and the family members of the patient. After the intended practice, the entire family will have peace with the affirmation that there is a set date to reach the end of the underlying situation. In short euthanasia agrees with the aspect that every individual with terminal illness has the right to determine their final decision of life.

Barriers to the Implementation of Euthanasia

Ethical Ramifications

Recent studies have proved that medical practitioners always find it challenging to establish a productive conversation with patients regarding the end of life decisions. In like manner, other scholars report that the intervention of older people, is unsuitable and that the necessary decision-making processes by healthcare providers as well as patients can be barred by the alteration of an individual’s mental and cognitive state. Respectively, some researchers suggested that if healthcare practitioners induce the end of life conversations, while the specific patient still maintains his or her cognitive aptitude, the associated ethical condition could be eluded (Chandler, 2017). The beliefs of patients and their families, as well as principles observed by staff, could introduce conflicting dogmas when deciding on the most effective transition care. Although old patients with cancer will be willing to go ahead with the proposed terminal diagnosis, healthcare practitioners may decline the responsibility of administering the intervention hence leading to tensions among doctors/nurses, patients, and the management of the institution (Van der Geest & Satalkar 2019). Healthcare providers have to follow the moral responsibility of adhering to the desires of the patient and the respective families, but the decision goes against their work ethics of saving the life of patients. The general assumption of using this palliative care is that nonconformity by the terminally ill patient or their family members can easily lead to an ethical dilemma for medical practitioners.

Unproductive Results

Another challenge is that the suggested medical intervention does not always achieve the predicted results. Various states have tracked the outcome of patients who opted to take lethal prescriptions as a way of ending their lives with dignity and reducing the pain. The data collected indicated that there were patients who regained consciousness immediately after taking the dosage (Keown 2018). When an individual opts for this decision and it doesn’t turn out as intended, it puts them as well as their doctors into challenging situations. For instance, will the doctors continue with the intervention, or do they attempt to aid the people to terminate their lives again? In broader prospects, people who consider this intervention have to be certain that there is no guarantee of the anticipated outcome.

Validations of the Innovation

The introduction of Euthanasia in palliative care has been considered as an effective model for improving one’s quality of life. According to Van der Geest and Satalkar (2019), euthanasia has helped to reduce suffering for people with terminal illnesses. Similarly, Chandler (2017), agrees with this assertion claiming that the innovation does not only enhance the quality of life but also patients and families with socioeconomic challenges. In most cases, terminally ill cancer patients would require a lot of funds to support their care and this could be challenging for poor families. But with euthanasia, the assumed financial issues could easily be managed. However, researchers such as Bernheim and Raus (2017) have suggested that this initiative is ineffective since it goes against the building blocks of ethics in nursing. The scholars assume that it is immoral for medical practitioners to attest that they are saving lives but on the other hand are acting as counterparts to ending one’s life. On the same note, Lavoie et al (2016) have proved that a significant number of nurses have a positive attitude when practicing euthanasia. Besides, Keown (2018), proposes that end-of-life choices should be accustomed to patients in that if they feel that they are suffering, they could resort to terminating their lives without harming anyone.

In conclusion, innovations in palliative care for old people with terminal cancer by using euthanasia have been a good initiative in promoting the value of life. Also, it has helped to reduce the guilt that patients have to their caregivers. Besides, it gives patients more control over the final decision of life. However, the intervention has significant challenges such as the failure to establish effective conversations regarding the end-of-life decision and lack of guarantee for the projected outcome considering that there are patients who still recover even after being administered the medication. 

engender and perpetuate health inequalities.