Discussion of Alzheimer’s disease, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, and LSPQ
The responses differed between the five scenarios depending on the need to avoid or manage pain and dignity. For current health, the preference is to seek more treatment depending on the situation. For instance, in some scenarios, it is easier to seek treatment immediately since a future scenario might be challenging. For Alzheimer’s, stroke, and cancer, the response was leaning towards a preference for life-prolonging treatment because of the facts. Alzheimer’s disease comes with the difficulty of thinking or remembering things clearly. Also, the condition has no cure, and it may progress slowly or quickly but does not affect any physical ability and status. Second, the level of stroke can be severe or moderately severe. Therefore, stroke can place the patient in a coma for several weeks, and there is a chance of failing to regain awareness. Lastly, timely treatment of pancreatic cancer can prolong life. However, for congestive heart failure, the situation is often projected to get worse, and life-prolonging treatment is not a preference.
2)
Because all the four treatments are life-prolonging or improve the condition, the responses did not differ. Antibiotics are essential in managing severe illnesses such as pneumonia. Therefore, a lack of antibiotics can lead to complications, which can further result in death. As for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), it is also very critical when the heart stops beating, or the person is no longer able to breathe, and the patient needs to live by having the heart start to beat again. Restarting the heartbeat always involves the use of an electrical shock. Also, a hip replacement can help to better one’s current condition. Lastly, tube feeding helps a person to stay alive when they cannot take adequate fluids and food. Without this treatment, the patient can die within one to two weeks. Therefore, all the treatments were acceptable, no matter the circumstances.
3)
One of the problems of an advanced directive is the fact that approaching a person about an advanced directive to introduce it to them as an option is difficult. For instance, it is challenging to approach a patient about life support treatment in case they lose their capacity to make decisions before experiencing that particular state of health. Through LSPQ, it is easier to introduce such a topic to a person because the person and his or her family can be educated about the different options that are in existence. LSPQ can illustrate the possibilities that are in existence. Second, the inadequacy of the advanced directive to educate leads to inconsistency of responses considering it mostly targets a healthy individual.
Reaction to Completing the Life Support Preferences Questionnaire
One of the surprising responses is concerning the treatments. Remarkably, there was no difference in the answers regarding the treatment methods. Besides, most scenario responses were relating to the preference for life-prolonging treatment, especially Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, and COOK scenarios. Such responses could be linked to other factors. For instance, having in place, a belief system that sees life as important with minor exceptions could be credited for the choices. Another important consideration is the role that the family plays in influencing the above decisions. Therefore, the impact of the responses on the family was an essential factor in this case.
Although I have not completed a similar instrument to the LSPQ before, answering a question on withdrawal or withholding of a life-supporting treatment is difficult. Choosing whether one needs a life-supporting treatment or not when in the process of dying from a terminal condition or when they are permanently unconscious is difficult. Therefore, the “I do not know” answer is always a refuge for many. Even though there were responses to all the scenarios and treatments, in this case, it was not easy to be sure about the response. It necessitated a careful analysis of the facts in each situation and the possible outcomes.
Lastly, the exercise brought about a realization that LPSQ is useful in predicting health preferences to a considerable degree. Its usefulness is because the questions, even though hypothetical, were more specific and detailed in comparison to the standard living will questions. Besides, the type of responses is likely to come from actual treatment preferences depending on whether someone is approaching the end of life or not. Another critical factor is that life-prolonging preferences in any of the situations were also affected by other factors that influence choices such as family preferences, longevity, and religious beliefs.