Legal+Considerations

Legal Considerations

 * There are a few legal considerations to made in this case. Just as a counselor must consider ethics when counseling clients, they must also consider possible legal implications. Some clients, such as Jason, seem to have rational arguments for their end-of-life decisions. To counsel a client that has rationalized their deaths, counselors must examine their personal and moral beliefs regarding death. To some, Jason may be considering rational suicide, but others may consider it to be just suicide. Rational suicide has been a growing controversy in the United States. Some consider it a crime while others see it as a way to end their life with dignity. The questions in Jason’s case are “does ceasing medication, knowing that death will be imminent, mean that the client is suicidal?” and “If his counselor does nothing, is he/she contributing to his questioned suicide?” Physician-assisted suicide is said to be another type of rational suicide (Kiser, 1996). The laws regarding suicide vary from state to state and seem rather vague. **


 * One of the most famous cases of rational suicide was Dr. Kevorkian. He publicized his role in assisting more than 20 people end their lives (Kiser, 1996). This resulted in Michigan’s law that temporarily banned assisted suicide. Kevorkian went on to assist another man in his death and stood trial for murder. He was found not guilty on the grounds that he was not trying to end the man’s life, only his pain and suffering (Kiser, 1996). The Kevorkian case is relevant to Jason’s case because Jason is also stating the pain and suffering he is going through due to his HIV medications is lowering his quality of life. He knows that he has little time left to live and he believes that he can have better quality of life without the medications. **


 * In February of 2012, Georgia law overturned a law that limited some assisted suicides, saying it is unconstitutional and violates free speech rights. The spotlighted case involved a man that committed suicide only 2 years after finding out he was diagnosed with throat and mouth cancer. Members of the Final Exit Network were criminally charged, but now the charges against them will be dismissed. Dr. Egbert, one of the men charged in this case says "The freedom to choose to hasten death is a powerful freedom," and "I will continue to work with Final Exit Network. I predict that in the future this freedom to choose will expand." He went on to express his thoughts on rational suicide "If one is not nervous about dying, something is badly wrong. But I don't feel any guilt. Patients beg for us to help them. We have gone to great lengths to make sure such persons are rational and have thought carefully about what they want to do” (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/758355). **


 * Other arguments assisted-suicide includes are saving money and preventing total dependence on someone else. Jason states that he may cash in his life insurance, charge his credit cards, and travel for the remainder of his life. Is this his right, or does the law decide for him? He states that he has no one to leave his insurance money to anyways, so it doesn’t matter if he cashes it in and charges all his credit cards. He wants to use his money for other things, such as travel . He also reports that he has no significant support group or relationships, and as the end of his life nears, he may not want to become completely dependent since there doesn’t seem to be anyone to take care of him. **

** Another legal consideration in Jason’s case is AIDS confidentiality. It is taken very seriously in Georgia; AIDS information is highly confidential when compared to other medical information. A patient's written consent is required to disclose AIDS information unless the disclosure is otherwise authorized or required by law. Confidential information for people with AIDS is as follows; the diagnosis of AIDS, being treated for AIDS, is infected with HIV, has been tested for HIV, or has sought counseling for AIDS/HIV (O.C.G.A. 24-9-47 and 31-22-9.1). If anyone discloses this information about another person, they are in violation of the law and may be subject to penalties. If the disclosure is unintentional, it is also considered a criminal offense (O.C.G.A. 24-9-47). In Jason’s case, the counselor would have to get written permission from Jason to talk with or consult his doctors or anyone else. **
 * Georgia law also says “it shall be the policy of this state to recognize the personal physical integrity of all patients,” and “it shall be the policy of this state to protect, within reason, the right of every individual to refuse medication except in cases where a physician determines that refusal would be unsafe to the patient or others. If the patient continues to refuse medication after such initial emergency treatment, a concurring opinion from a second physician must be obtained before medication can be continued without the patient's consent. Further, in connection with any hearing under this chapter, the patient has the right to appear and testify as free from any side effects or adverse effects of the meds as is reasonably possible Under Georgia law, Jason would have the right to stop taking his medications unless his physician thought that the refusal would be unsafe to him or others. This is a tricky situation because ceasing the medications would certainly harm Jason by death, but on the other hand, he is going to die regardless of his disease. Another aspect to consider is if his doctor would testify that stopping his medication would cause him harm; the law says that his personal physical integrity must be recognized. **

Kiser, J. (1996) Counselors and the Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide. //Counseling and Values.// (40) 127-132//.// [] []