Category: Let's talk
Well we all remember the case of Terri Schiavo who had her feeding tubes removed on request of her husband, well, it would seem in this country things work slightly differently. yesterday I heard a story on the radio about a man who is going to court to win the right to be kept alive. He suffers from a progressive nurological disorder similar to moto nurone disease, and he has requested that he doe not want any feeding tubes to be removed when he gets to the point where he is no longer able to communicate competently. However, it would seem in this country, that we do not thve the right to choose to be kept alive, as these decisions are made by doctors, and not by patients or their family members. So is this right? should someone really have to go to court to fight for the right to be kept alive? or should the hospital have the ultimate say as it is them who have to keep the patient alive.
I think that if the family can afford to keep him alive and not depend on the taxpayers money to do so then why not. I don't know what kind of life someone can have with a progressivce nuerological disorder (once it gets to a certain point) that has no cure. If it's progressive my guess is at somepoint the brain will just shut itself down. Tough call to make though not knowing all of the details.
It's sad that someone would have to go to court to stay alive, but I think he should have the right to make that decision because maybe he has strong beliefs about that or something. I don't know. Like maybe he wants to die when he feels it's his time to go. I wonder if he has any family or close friends, because maybe if any of them agrees with him, they can find a way to take care of him away from that hospital, like at some kind of group home or at home. But yeah, I think the patient (or whoever he trusts knows him well enough) should always have the say on what kind of treatment they want if they become unable to communicate. It might be a burden for the doctors, but the man has made a choice that he clearly wants to live, so I think that should be respected. And of course, if someone expressed themselves ahead of time that they wouldn't want to have any extra measures taken if they went unconscious or somthing, then that should be respected as well.
Leilani
well yeh ultimately he will die from the disorder, but his thinking was that he does not want to be starved to death as was the case with Terri Schiavo. Personally I wouldn't want to live like that, but ... I guess some think differently, and he wants to live until his natural time to die comes.
well in this country it is common practice for doctors to go to court to win the right to withdraw treatment, a couple of fairly high profile cases have been in the media lately, one in the case of a premature baby called Charlot whyatt, and another baby with a rare genetic disorder. in both cases, the doctors won their appeals, and the parents did not have the ultimate say.
That's sad and very unfair though, but oh well. *frowns* I've never heard of anything like that, and I think that's weird that the parents didn't have a say as they are the ones who would have been raising those children. I don't know. The fact that the doctor can make that decision reguardless of the patient or parents' wishes is just weird to me.
Leilani
well, I think that in the case of both children, their life expectancy was very low, also, in the case of charlot Wyatt, her lungs were very under developed, and every time her heart had to be restarted it has done more damage to her lungs and caused her to be in severe pain. The doctors haven't so much won the right to let these children die, but to not resussitate them should they stop breathing etc. I think that, as a parent, it is often almost impossible to make that decision because, as a parent, when you have a child, you consciously create a life, to then consciously decide to allow that life to end is something which, in my opinion, is too emotional for a parent to make.
Why would he want to suffer unneccessarily...I have watched a very close friend waste away from ALD and 1, from a form of Leukodystrophy. In the end Danny's brother's opinion to keep his brother alive,was ignored, by the medical profession as Danny was suffering and his death would have been a relief..in the end they made the decision to remove treatment and let him die..I think in many cases the parents ect,hang on to the person simply because of the bond and are unable to say goodbye, he/she is still here, I still have him/her in a small way..It's a feckin hard question to answer.In the case of someone like your man, I'd say the decsion rests with the doctors,and lawyers should not come into the equation, as they lack the insight to comprehend their clients suffering and the manner of his death...
I have to disagree with the resuscitation of severly ill and /or disabled children..I read a case of a mother who asked for her severly disabled son to be resuscitated 4 times each time damaging his health and quality of life...the lad is blind, profoundly phyiscally and mentally disabled, with no controllable motor function, he is incontinent and will die before his 20th birthday.Why on earth, would a suposedly loving parent, inflict such cruelty on a defencless child..its simple the selfish need to have the life they created and ruined just to say this is my son/daughter I brought this child into the world...such selfishness leads to untold pain illness and suffering for the victim.
i do think really it's up to the patient. if i was suffering like that i'd just decide to die.
The man who wants to be kept alive when he can't do anything for himself, when he will depend on others without been able to give them anything back is absolutely selfish, and I don't think such selfishness should be rewarded. In the case Goblin described, the Mother is clearly selfish putting uherself before the kid or anybody else. I can understand the man not wanting to be starved to death, and it would probably better if he was just shot through the head instead, but he's going to die from the illness no matter how he's killed so no way will be better for him really. Some ways will take less time than others. As for the point of him been kept alive if his family can afford it, well if they have enough money to be able to afford to keep him alive and prelong his death from illness surely it would be better spent on keeping someone from a developing country alive who would be able to make a lot more of their lives.
agree with the WW on this one. I mean, let's face it, with this disease by the time he would have died naturally he would be so totally dependent (and probably not even conscious no more), that it just doesn't make sense. If he is in fact conscious, I can understand him not wanting to starve to death, but otherwise surely it doesn't matter. And as some have said, if it were the family who were gonna supply the money then I'm all for it, but if it's the hospitals, then they should have the right here.(it's a horrible decision in any case, and the poor guy is probably still very scared of knowing his gonna die!)
I find it interesting that people keep saying that it is fine for the families to have the final say in this issue just so long as they are the ones to foot the bill for the cost of continued treatment! Effectively what you are saying therefore is that families with financial clout do have the right to make that choice while families with little or no money should have no say what so ever! Surely that's a double standard though? Should the same rules not apply to all?
As for the question itself I just don't know! It is such an emotive issue! For that reason alone perhaps it is best that such decitions are taken by imparcial parties such as doctors. Afterall regardless of weather a loved one is lying in pane or not it would still be incredibly difficult to ask to allow that person to die, Or not be resussitated, which ever the case may be.
In fact all I can say for certainty is, God forbid that any of us should ever be faced with that choice!
He's disturbingly keen on murder that numpty eh thank feck your man's not a doctor or ICU would echo to the sound of gunfire every few seconds...
well, the appeal hearing began yesterday. the man involved, Lesley Birkett, actually gained the right last year to not have any food/water withdrawn, however the GMC have appealed the decision, so I guess only time will tell now. With regard to the resussitation of severely ill babies, I agree with goblin on that score. often in these cases, they involve babies who are born very prematurely, and who most likely would have suffered brain damage as a result. so often these babies stop breathing or their hearts stop beating for the plain and simple reason that they just were born too early, but now we have the medical technology to keep bringing them back, and with what result. A child who is so badly brain damaged that he/she will never lead a normal life, and will most likely spend the first years of his life in hospital. surely in that instance it is better to just let the baby go with the minimal amount of suffering. I guess no one can ever know until we are faced with such a situation - I hope I never am, but I'd like to hope that if I was, I could make the decision not to put my child through that kind of pain/suffering.