"Instead of treatment being the default position, unless it is highly likely that the treatment will fail, non-treatment should be the default position, unless treatment is highly likely to succeed." That's my stance, always, but I'm definitely in the minority (or at least I have been, every time we've faced at terminal illness in my family). People think I'm heartless sometimes, but to me, it makes no sense to value length of life over quality of life, because it's essentially forcing someone to suffer needlessly, because you don't want to let go yet and are expecting the doctors to perform a miracle. I think delaying the inevitable is unintentionally cruel. I know people aren't consciously trying to prolong their loved one's suffering; it's part of a cultural/societal expectation that you do everything possible to preserve life. If the focus would shift to preserving quality of life, I think more people would be able to embrace death as a neutral event and a conclusion, and not a negative event to be prevented by any and all means. The question I always consider is, "who benefits from this treatment, the sick person, or the people who love that person?". If a treatment does not have reasonably good odds of improving the quality of life for the sick person, then it can't be for them, and in that case, it's unfair to pursue it.
You say medicine is the science of the probable, but I offer that in the majority of cases that are contested, the doctor has no data but his personal hunch about the 'likelihood' of outcomes. And from experience, rests upon his own arrogant judgement. I can't help feeling the subjugation of autonomy to 'purpose of medicine' is pragmatically cost motivated, we can't afford to have people making costly irrational decisions.
"Instead of treatment being the default position, unless it is highly likely that the treatment will fail, non-treatment should be the default position, unless treatment is highly likely to succeed." That's my stance, always, but I'm definitely in the minority (or at least I have been, every time we've faced at terminal illness in my family). People think I'm heartless sometimes, but to me, it makes no sense to value length of life over quality of life, because it's essentially forcing someone to suffer needlessly, because you don't want to let go yet and are expecting the doctors to perform a miracle. I think delaying the inevitable is unintentionally cruel. I know people aren't consciously trying to prolong their loved one's suffering; it's part of a cultural/societal expectation that you do everything possible to preserve life. If the focus would shift to preserving quality of life, I think more people would be able to embrace death as a neutral event and a conclusion, and not a negative event to be prevented by any and all means. The question I always consider is, "who benefits from this treatment, the sick person, or the people who love that person?". If a treatment does not have reasonably good odds of improving the quality of life for the sick person, then it can't be for them, and in that case, it's unfair to pursue it.
Wiesz Agnieszka my z matką zdecydowaliśmy, żeby babcia nie miała uporczywej terapii. Kiedyś to wytłumaczę, ale nie tutaj.
You say medicine is the science of the probable, but I offer that in the majority of cases that are contested, the doctor has no data but his personal hunch about the 'likelihood' of outcomes. And from experience, rests upon his own arrogant judgement.
I can't help feeling the subjugation of autonomy to 'purpose of medicine' is pragmatically cost motivated, we can't afford to have people making costly irrational decisions.