Opinion
The Shortland Street episode of June 21 portrays a scenario where an unconscious man on life support has written an advance directive rejecting precisely such support in that situation. His loving wife, believing she is doing the right thing, argues with the doctor against his advance directive: she’s going to
stand by her man and fight for life preservation. She wants treatment, treatment, treatment — all in contravention of his wishes. An ever-tearful niece changes her mind from respecting her uncle’s wishes to supporting her aunt’s polemic. The doctor initially argues that the advance directive is paramount, then admits that he also doesn’t want to lose his dear friend, the patient, and appears to teeter between duty and self-indulgence. Tears all round.
Then comes the phone call from the lawyer. The advance directive is indeed legally paramount. Why? Because it is the person speaking for himself: in “advance” of the situation, he is giving his “directive” (instructions). He does not want efforts to prolong his life in such a situation.
Promos indicate that the June 22 episode will be the final farewells to the patient as the doctor switches off life support and the patient gets what he wanted: an end to torture. More tears, surely.
If you think this drama could only happen in a soapie, think again. Intensive care doctors tell us over and over again that families are the primary cause of suffering imposed on loved ones in situations where there is no prospect of a return to any kind of quality of life. It’s the families who demand that doctors do everything to “save” them, even against medical explanation that further treatment is likely to cause great suffering and nevertheless end in the kind of death no one would want.
How to avoid? Make an advance directive.
