Assisted Suicide

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby Mathurin » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:33 am

lil bit wrote:
Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:
Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:You are confusing DNR with euthanasia.


I am extrapolating involuntary DNR to a very low level of euthanasia, yes.


Then you are wrong, because it's not the same at all.


Because withholding resuscitation is one step, next might be certain life prolonging drugs or treatments, how long until death is the only treatment offered?



One thing does not follow the other. There are times when it is not in the best interests of the patient to resuscitate them if they suffer a cardiac arrest - which is stating the obvious.


One thing does not _HAVE_ to follow the other, that does not mean one thing does not increase the chances of another.


In this case it does. Why should it?


In the US DNRs required a long court battle to be recognized by the medical profession, they considered it their duty to provide any and all life saving treatment.
Now it seems that medical doctors in the UK can write it down without consulting the patient.

You dont see that as a step down a dangerous path.

lil bit wrote:
lil bit wrote:Resuscitation can be painful and invasive and can sometimes mean instead of slipping away peacefully, the person lingers on for perhaps weeks in great discomfort.


Yes, resuscitation can be the the difference between life and death, sometimes that life is not worth living, but that decision is only for the patient to make, maybe next of kin. Not the doctor, and most definitely NOT when the patient has clearly and obviously stated they were opposed to it.


Unfortunately, doctors aren't miracle workers and cannot prevent people dying from terminal illnesses.


lil bit wrote:It's not a decision that is made without the knowledge of at least the next of kin whenever possible.

You should have read the link properly.


Which part of the link stated the hospital had consent for the DNR.
Maybe you mean: "The trust, which strongly disputes the family's claims, says a doctor did seek Mrs Tracey's informed consent."

At absolute best I see a hospital harrassing a patient they dont want to treat anymore into an agreement.


The husband is grief stricken and looking for someone to blame for his wife's death from terminal lung cancer and a broken neck, when there is no one to blame.


A broken neck is not always fatal, lung cancer is a long term thing that had been diagnosed recently, neither HAD to kill her immediately, she could have lived for months, maybe years with proper treatment.

lil bit wrote:Nobody killed her. She died.

Even while his wife was intubated after the road accident, he lived in hope.
He was told by a doctor that if there were problems with ventilation being withdrawn, they would let her "slip away" but he was not aware of the first DNR notice until after it had been cancelled.
Although known as DNR notices, they are officially termed 'Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' forms.
Mr Tracey looked up cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) but did not think it was relevant in his wife's case as she did not have a heart condition, and he did not speak to the doctors about it


As you can see, he's not too bright which doesn't help. He didn't have a problem with the doctor telling him they would let her slip away, but didn't realise that meant she would need a DNR order so that any doctor reading her notes would know know she was to be allowed to die.

Asking a patient or their next of kin to agree to a DNR order isn't always best thing to do, as it just adds to the fear and distress of the ill person and their family.

By law doctors are supposed to ask, which is why this poor woman was "badgered". The staff had to have a decision from her, which she refused to give.

As she was mentally capable and conscious, it was up to her to decide - not her husband or family.


He reassured his shocked wife, who was in tears, that neither he nor their daughters agreed to the notice


The poor woman obviously didn't understand, and her family didn't try to reassure her or get hold of a nurse to talk to her about it.

Stupid people.


You seem to be claiming the woman herself agreed to the DNR, when from the information we have she did not.

Oh yes, apparently all are quite stupid, does that mean she should die before she had to?

I dont know about the UK, in the US its a form, a document that must be signed. This is not a doctors choice, it is not a decision that can be implied.

Mark my words, if this continues people will start hiring lawyers to sit in on their consultations with doctors to make sure nothing implicit is slipped past them quietly.

lil bit wrote:
lil bit wrote:
If you have faith in this 'new world' humans have created in a small section of the world in very recent history then by all means, go right ahead, I am just far more cynical.

Rest assured, I am totally behind people being able to decide to end their own lives, I am just worried that assisted suicide and government provided healthcare will come together with a euthanistic crash, so its something I want to watch carefully.


Then you are worrying needlessly.

Watch it carefully by all means, but don't try to make something out of nothing.


Yeah, I guess nobody has ever used euthanasia to clear out hospitals to 'make room' or otherwise used the concept of reduced public expenditure as an excuse to practice euthanasia.


Not as far as I know. I can't speak for the US, but I doubt it happens there, either.



I doubted it as well, then I read this.
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL02/nolan.html

Selective treatment, or "passive euthanasia" would be the mildest form allowed under current law. And people do practice it.
I have already seen the propaganda for it, from a different nation and time.



lil bit wrote:You're just looking for a reason to discredit UHC.

On the one hand you have this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/ ... /dnr.shtml


It's difficult to make a judgment as we don't know her health problems, but this is sadly only too common:

Age Concern warned that the UK's elderly feared they were at risk of not being revived simply because of their age.

Arguing that DNRs might be a form of ageism in the NHS, a spokeseman said "Age Concern will not rest until the 'writing off' of patients' lives on the basis of their age has been stamped out."


That's not really the case. Elderly people are far more likely to suffer broken ribs and pneumonia if DNR is successful, so they will die anyway.

Also elderly people sometimes panic when they are asked about DNR orders. They immediately think the doctor is expecting their heart to stop, when there may only be a tiny chance of that happening.

On the other hand, you have this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2819149.stm

This woman knows exactly what can DNR involve.

Her granddaughter Dr Claire Polack, a GP in Edinburgh, told the BBC her grandmother was right that the medical profession did not discuss the issue of resuscitation enough

I think that's true. In the case of cardiac arrest caused by shock or trauma, DNR is vital.

But not when a patient has died because they were terminally ill.


Entirely logical.

Many things that are logical are also morally wrong.

Eugenics and euthanasia went hand in hand during the first 30-40 years of the last century, and it makes incredibly logical sense to use both to improve all of humanity. Spending resources on healthcare for the infirm or mentally ill is a waste, entirely futile.
But refusing to do so is morally wrong.
If we continue down the UHC path this will be possibly the biggest issue of this century; how much of a nations wealth should be spent on prolonging the life of those who no longer generate any wealth.
Mathurin
Congressman
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:58 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby lil bit » Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:41 am

The woman died of terminal lung cancer, complicated by a broken neck. A DNR order was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

The man is angry his wife is dead and doesn't seem to have understood there was nothing to be done for her other than make her as comfortable as possible.

In my opinion it's cruel to ask frightened people to agree to a DNR order when death is imminent and when a person is on a terminally ill list DNR should be standard procedure.

You, like this man, seem to think people can live forever with cancer. Well, they can't. Lung cancer has a high mortality rate that increases with age.

It's ludicrous to claim that woman died before she had to.

If I were her husband, I'd be grateful she died before her tissues started breaking down and leaking from her body every time she was touched.

I'd be grateful she didn't get to the point where she was kept stupefied by a morphine pump.

It's awful, Mathurin.

Cancer literally stinks.

She seems to have slipped away relatively peacefully with much of her dignity intact.

According to you, she wouldn't have been able to do that in the USA because doctors aren't allowed to let people die until there is nothing left of them.
'She couldn't help wondering what use Carl had for a double bed in his bachelor establishment' - Rafferty's Legacy -Jane Corrie
lil bit
Senator
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:45 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby Mathurin » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:01 pm

lil bit wrote:The woman died of terminal lung cancer, complicated by a broken neck. A DNR order was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

The man is angry his wife is dead and doesn't seem to have understood there was nothing to be done for her other than make her as comfortable as possible.

In my opinion it's cruel to ask frightened people to agree to a DNR order when death is imminent and when a person is on a terminally ill list DNR should be standard procedure.


Life and deaths most difficult decisions are always hard, that doesnt mean doctors or government should make them.
My grandfather agreed to his DNR, both he and the family were happy with it, he was done and he knew it.

Since you are a self professed follower of government opinion, I always wonder how much of your opinion is yours and how much is what the government has told you to think.

lil bit wrote:You, like this man, seem to think people can live forever with cancer. Well, they can't. Lung cancer has a high mortality rate that increases with age.

It's ludicrous to claim that woman died before she had to.

If I were her husband, I'd be grateful she died before her tissues started breaking down and leaking from her body every time she was touched.

I'd be grateful she didn't get to the point where she was kept stupefied by a morphine pump.

It's awful, Mathurin.

Cancer literally stinks.

She seems to have slipped away relatively peacefully with much of her dignity intact.

According to you, she wouldn't have been able to do that in the USA because doctors aren't allowed to let people die until there is nothing left of them.


Yes, its horrible, its still not the doctors decision.


I recognize that people dont always make the best choices.
Under a free nation they are still allowed to make bad choices.
Mathurin
Congressman
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:58 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby lil bit » Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:53 pm

Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:The woman died of terminal lung cancer, complicated by a broken neck. A DNR order was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

The man is angry his wife is dead and doesn't seem to have understood there was nothing to be done for her other than make her as comfortable as possible.

In my opinion it's cruel to ask frightened people to agree to a DNR order when death is imminent and when a person is on a terminally ill list DNR should be standard procedure.


Life and deaths most difficult decisions are always hard, that doesnt mean doctors or government should make them.
My grandfather agreed to his DNR, both he and the family were happy with it, he was done and he knew it.


He didn't choose to die. He chose not be resuscitated of his heart stopped, because as you say, he was done and he knew it.


Since you are a self professed follower of government opinion, I always wonder how much of your opinion is yours and how much is what the government has told you to think.


for crying out loud..it's my opinion, based on my life experiences.

It's nothing to do with the government, because it's nothing to do with them, but rather the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing.


lil bit wrote:You, like this man, seem to think people can live forever with cancer. Well, they can't. Lung cancer has a high mortality rate that increases with age.

It's ludicrous to claim that woman died before she had to.

If I were her husband, I'd be grateful she died before her tissues started breaking down and leaking from her body every time she was touched.

I'd be grateful she didn't get to the point where she was kept stupefied by a morphine pump.

It's awful, Mathurin.

Cancer literally stinks.

She seems to have slipped away relatively peacefully with much of her dignity intact.

According to you, she wouldn't have been able to do that in the USA because doctors aren't allowed to let people die until there is nothing left of them.


Yes, its horrible, its still not the doctors decision.


It was nobody's decision. She died of her illness, though if the doctor believed CPR would be harmful for the patient he or she had every right to refuse to carry it out.

Just as a doctor can refuse to prescribe antibiotics for no good reason, he or she could refuse to attempt CPR if they believed the outcome would be harmful to the patient.


I recognize that people dont always make the best choices.
Under a free nation they are still allowed to make bad choices.


She refused to make a choice. Not that she really had one, any more than your grandfather did.

People have unrealistic ideas about CPR, which is seldom just a matter of pumping a person's chest for a bit which either succeeds or fails.

Personally, I blame TV hospital dramas for that.
'She couldn't help wondering what use Carl had for a double bed in his bachelor establishment' - Rafferty's Legacy -Jane Corrie
lil bit
Senator
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:45 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby Mathurin » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:28 am

lil bit wrote:
Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:The woman died of terminal lung cancer, complicated by a broken neck. A DNR order was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

The man is angry his wife is dead and doesn't seem to have understood there was nothing to be done for her other than make her as comfortable as possible.

In my opinion it's cruel to ask frightened people to agree to a DNR order when death is imminent and when a person is on a terminally ill list DNR should be standard procedure.


Life and deaths most difficult decisions are always hard, that doesnt mean doctors or government should make them.
My grandfather agreed to his DNR, both he and the family were happy with it, he was done and he knew it.


He didn't choose to die. He chose not be resuscitated of his heart stopped, because as you say, he was done and he knew it.


Since you are a self professed follower of government opinion, I always wonder how much of your opinion is yours and how much is what the government has told you to think.


for crying out loud..it's my opinion, based on my life experiences.

It's nothing to do with the government, because it's nothing to do with them, but rather the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing.


You can never tell, as a self confessed whatever way the wind blows person you might well have been directed towards it without realizing it.


lil bit wrote:
lil bit wrote:You, like this man, seem to think people can live forever with cancer. Well, they can't. Lung cancer has a high mortality rate that increases with age.

It's ludicrous to claim that woman died before she had to.

If I were her husband, I'd be grateful she died before her tissues started breaking down and leaking from her body every time she was touched.

I'd be grateful she didn't get to the point where she was kept stupefied by a morphine pump.

It's awful, Mathurin.

Cancer literally stinks.

She seems to have slipped away relatively peacefully with much of her dignity intact.

According to you, she wouldn't have been able to do that in the USA because doctors aren't allowed to let people die until there is nothing left of them.


Yes, its horrible, its still not the doctors decision.


It was nobody's decision. She died of her illness, though if the doctor believed CPR would be harmful for the patient he or she had every right to refuse to carry it out.

Just as a doctor can refuse to prescribe antibiotics for no good reason, he or she could refuse to attempt CPR if they believed the outcome would be harmful to the patient.


Yes, broken ribs are more harmful than death.

lil bit wrote:
I recognize that people dont always make the best choices.
Under a free nation they are still allowed to make bad choices.


She refused to make a choice. Not that she really had one, any more than your grandfather did.

People have unrealistic ideas about CPR, which is seldom just a matter of pumping a person's chest for a bit which either succeeds or fails.

Personally, I blame TV hospital dramas for that.


She clearly made a choice when she had the first DNR removed.

This is getting to be the direct opposite of DNRs in the past, when it was a fight to get medical personnel to recognize them. Now the patient has to fight to make sure their choice is adhered too.
Mathurin
Congressman
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:58 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby lil bit » Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:11 pm

Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:
Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:The woman died of terminal lung cancer, complicated by a broken neck. A DNR order was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.

The man is angry his wife is dead and doesn't seem to have understood there was nothing to be done for her other than make her as comfortable as possible.

In my opinion it's cruel to ask frightened people to agree to a DNR order when death is imminent and when a person is on a terminally ill list DNR should be standard procedure.


Life and deaths most difficult decisions are always hard, that doesnt mean doctors or government should make them.
My grandfather agreed to his DNR, both he and the family were happy with it, he was done and he knew it.


He didn't choose to die. He chose not be resuscitated of his heart stopped, because as you say, he was done and he knew it.


Since you are a self professed follower of government opinion, I always wonder how much of your opinion is yours and how much is what the government has told you to think.


for crying out loud..it's my opinion, based on my life experiences.

It's nothing to do with the government, because it's nothing to do with them, but rather the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing.


You can never tell, as a self confessed whatever way the wind blows person you might well have been directed towards it without realizing it.


Of course not.


lil bit wrote:
lil bit wrote:You, like this man, seem to think people can live forever with cancer. Well, they can't. Lung cancer has a high mortality rate that increases with age.

It's ludicrous to claim that woman died before she had to.

If I were her husband, I'd be grateful she died before her tissues started breaking down and leaking from her body every time she was touched.

I'd be grateful she didn't get to the point where she was kept stupefied by a morphine pump.

It's awful, Mathurin.

Cancer literally stinks.

She seems to have slipped away relatively peacefully with much of her dignity intact.

According to you, she wouldn't have been able to do that in the USA because doctors aren't allowed to let people die until there is nothing left of them.


Yes, its horrible, its still not the doctors decision.


It was nobody's decision. She died of her illness, though if the doctor believed CPR would be harmful for the patient he or she had every right to refuse to carry it out.

Just as a doctor can refuse to prescribe antibiotics for no good reason, he or she could refuse to attempt CPR if they believed the outcome would be harmful to the patient.


Yes, broken ribs are more harmful than death.


They are if you are dying of a lung disease.

CPR is never given to patients with lung disease for that reason.

lil bit wrote:
I recognize that people dont always make the best choices.
Under a free nation they are still allowed to make bad choices.


She refused to make a choice. Not that she really had one, any more than your grandfather did.

People have unrealistic ideas about CPR, which is seldom just a matter of pumping a person's chest for a bit which either succeeds or fails.

Personally, I blame TV hospital dramas for that.


She clearly made a choice when she had the first DNR removed.


It was replaced.

This is getting to be the direct opposite of DNRs in the past, when it was a fight to get medical personnel to recognize them. Now the patient has to fight to make sure their choice is adhered too.


She wouldn't make the choice, but really she didn't have one, as she was dying from lung cancer and there was nothing that was going to prevent that.

You can't demand whatever treatment you want if it's not in your best interests - even in the USA.
'She couldn't help wondering what use Carl had for a double bed in his bachelor establishment' - Rafferty's Legacy -Jane Corrie
lil bit
Senator
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:45 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby Mathurin » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:46 am

lil bit wrote:She clearly made a choice when she had the first DNR removed.


It was replaced.[/quote]
Yes, that is the point, she demanded it be removed, clearly showing her desire.



lil bit wrote:
This is getting to be the direct opposite of DNRs in the past, when it was a fight to get medical personnel to recognize them. Now the patient has to fight to make sure their choice is adhered too.


She wouldn't make the choice, but really she didn't have one, as she was dying from lung cancer and there was nothing that was going to prevent that.


Removing a DNR is making a choice, its saying you want to be resuscitated if possible.


lil bit wrote:You can't demand whatever treatment you want if it's not in your best interests - even in the USA.


This is not about demanding whatever treatment you want.
This is about doctors denying reasonable treatment because they decide your life is no longer worth living.
Mathurin
Congressman
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:58 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby lil bit » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:12 am

Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:She clearly made a choice when she had the first DNR removed.


It was replaced.

Yes, that is the point, she demanded it be removed, clearly showing her desire.[/quote]

Yes, unfortunately her desires were unrealistic.


lil bit wrote:
This is getting to be the direct opposite of DNRs in the past, when it was a fight to get medical personnel to recognize them. Now the patient has to fight to make sure their choice is adhered too.


She wouldn't make the choice, but really she didn't have one, as she was dying from lung cancer and there was nothing that was going to prevent that.


Removing a DNR is making a choice, its saying you want to be resuscitated if possible.


It's information for doctors, rather.


lil bit wrote:You can't demand whatever treatment you want if it's not in your best interests - even in the USA.


This is not about demanding whatever treatment you want.
This is about doctors denying reasonable treatment because they decide your life is no longer worth living.


Not reasonable treatment, Mathurin.

I don't know why you're making a fuss about this.
'She couldn't help wondering what use Carl had for a double bed in his bachelor establishment' - Rafferty's Legacy -Jane Corrie
lil bit
Senator
 
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:45 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby Mathurin » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:08 am

lil bit wrote:
Mathurin wrote:
lil bit wrote:She clearly made a choice when she had the first DNR removed.


It was replaced.

Yes, that is the point, she demanded it be removed, clearly showing her desire.


Yes, unfortunately her desires were unrealistic.
[/quote]

All hail doctors, deciders of all things.

lil bit wrote:
lil bit wrote:
This is getting to be the direct opposite of DNRs in the past, when it was a fight to get medical personnel to recognize them. Now the patient has to fight to make sure their choice is adhered too.


She wouldn't make the choice, but really she didn't have one, as she was dying from lung cancer and there was nothing that was going to prevent that.


Removing a DNR is making a choice, its saying you want to be resuscitated if possible.


It's information for doctors, rather.


lil bit wrote:You can't demand whatever treatment you want if it's not in your best interests - even in the USA.


This is not about demanding whatever treatment you want.
This is about doctors denying reasonable treatment because they decide your life is no longer worth living.


Not reasonable treatment, Mathurin.

I don't know why you're making a fuss about this.


This woman had been diagnosed with cancer mere weeks ago, we dont know her prognosis but with modern treatments "terminal" can mean up to ten years.

I understand exactly why you arent making a fuss over this, because it is a government doctor.
If an insurance company denied this woman cancer treatment because her neck injury meant her likelyhood of living was low, you would probably be quite angry.
Mathurin
Congressman
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:58 pm
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 19 times
Political Leaning: Slightly Conservative

Re: Assisted Suicide

Postby wyc8lme » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:12 am

To tell the truth, I don't agree with helping people leave this earth, and I do not consider it as assisted suicide! It's not normal! See the full version of the similar post here: http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/physician-assisted-suicide-to-be-or-not-to-be. Oh, guys, you made me crying...
wyc8lme
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:08 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

PreviousNext

Return to Society

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron