Doctorin' with Double Effect: The Ethics of Withdrawal of Life Support and Oxygen in Dying Patients

There has been a lot of discussion about the ethical nuances of withdrawal of life support and provision of medications that relieve suffering but accelerate death, but precious little about an important aspect of end of life care that comes up all the time - what are our obligations regarding provision of oxygen to dying patients?

The withdrawal of life support is an activity (a commission) that is ethically protected because patients' autonomy and right to refuse treatments overrides the harm (death) that comes about when physicians act to withdraw life support.  This in itself is interesting because most states prohibit euthanasia (or the provision of prescriptions that enable patients to take their own lives), which is in essence a commission (as opposed to an omission) that accelerates death.  I'm struggling to understand the distinction, except that the withdrawal of life support restores the patient to a "natural state" and allows nature to take its course, whereas the provision of a prescription to allow a patient to overdose is a commission that seems to interfere with nature.  (Jonathan Baron has written extensively about our preference for "natural states" which often leads to worse outcomes.)  That takes care of the natural versus human distinction (which of course ignores that humans are part of nature), but I still struggle to understand why the patient in Oregon has to administer his own overdose, unassisted by a healthcare professional - what's the difference between a healthcare professional assisting with the administration of an overdose and accelerating death, and his removing life support and thus accelerating death, if both acts are in deference to patient autonomy, and both are commissions, and indeed both are direct actions, as opposed to indirect ones?  Maybe it's because you can act directly and cause harm in respect of autonomy as long as you restore a natural state (withdrawal of life support), but you cannot act directly to cause harm in respect of autonomy by causing an unnatural state (medication overdose).  I think this stream of consciousness has led me to the distinction.  Maybe.  The devil is in the details.

Your Last Words for a Few More Breaths: Unspoken Trade-offs in End-of-Life Care

A man with widely metastatic cancer is admitted to the hospital for shortness of breath, deteriorates in spite of broad spectrum care, and is transferred to the ICU.  The patient is documented to be "full code" and, while the prospect of "coding" him is unsettling for his providers, they struggle to articulate exactly why.  (Correct intuitions are often difficult to dissect and describe.)  Often the discussion (amongst themselves or with the family) centers on the direct, observable, physical aspects of suffering that must be borne by the patient during the resuscitation process and/or the transition to life support.  "Breaking of ribs" and the like.

But years of quiet and thoughtful reflection identifies some second order and often unspoken nuances of the transition to life support that are perhaps more important than the first order physical aspects.  When the man dying of cancer deteriorates to the point that his oxygen saturation cannot be supported without life support or his respiratory distress is too severe, and I position myself behind that bed, propofol and an 8.0 (endotracheal tube) in hands, I know the oft unspoken truth - that this is the last time that this man will be indubitably conscious and coherent or will speak to anyone, most notably his family.  Insomuch as life consists of an interaction with one's environment, with a central focus on social interactions, the patient dies the moment I induce with propofol and insert that tube between the vocal cords.  He has traded his last words for a few more breaths.  (He has also traded away his ability to enjoy food or drink.)