It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK legislation. Courts. End of life. Who decides?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Grambler

Because The State has to be right. If a high profile case like that one escapes and, heaven forbid, the kid gets better (no matter how unlikely it is), then people might start to question the judgments from on high more often.

It's about power and control.


Exactly!

If he went to Italy, was fully examined and they found there was a small chance that some treatment could help

Then the court in the U.K. would have to explain why they sentenced a child to death under incorrect info

It could cause people to question the entire system




posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I support euthanasia but you are just flat out wrong to say that its happening in the UK with the removal of food and fluids.

When it gets to a point where you have terminal multiple organ failure then it does not matter if you if you have food or not you will die. If you can take food then you will be provided with food.

You are making it sound like we just stop feeding people witch is just simply not the reality.


They will not give be Alfie a feeding tube, and are using the police to ensure that the family does not get the child to qualified doctors that do want to give him a feeding tube

So yes, they are starving him


This thread is not about Alfie.

I work in the NHS, I am involved in palliative care, quite often sadly patients reach a point at which they are dying and can no longer eat or drink, their bodies are just shutting down. It gets to a point where providing any kind of nutritional support is just futile.

I am not killing my patients by not stuffing a horrible tube down their nose so I can pump them full of some stinking liquidised food that is going to leave them with pretty horrendous fecal incontinence or its just going to sit in their guts because they can no longer absorb it.

The level of ignorance on this issue is astounding.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Either way a precedent has been set this week. A court could decide the only way I am allowed to die is by removal of fluids/nutrition and I say it sucks that the law doesn't allow a dignified morphine overdose when the outcome is the same.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It’s not about Alfie cause why, you say so?

Ok you are in nhs

I agree, if you don’t put a feeding tube down someone’s throat, you are not starving them as far as I am concerned

If the next doctor or nurse comes in and says they will shove a feeding tube down the patients throat, and you keep that medical professional from doing that, then yes, you are causing the starvation



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I have had a lot of dealings with the NHS . Bringing up a family, their families

my parents grand parents and extended family.

I have nothing but praise for the NHS.


IT IS SECOND TO NONE,



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: eletheia

Either way a precedent has been set this week. A court could decide the only way I am allowed to die is by removal of fluids/nutrition and I say it sucks that the law doesn't allow a dignified morphine overdose when the outcome is the same.


I agree with you that it kind of sucks that you cannot be actively euthanised, if that is what you wish.

However I think your understanding of how palliative care actually works is lacking.

Have you any experience in caring for dying patients?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




If the next doctor or nurse comes in and says they will shove a feeding tube down the patients throat, and you keep that medical professional from doing that, then yes, you are causing the starvation



That never really happens though, its usually a agreement that is made by consensus.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This thread is not about Alfie.

This thread is a general discussion about the state deciding how someone dies.
The child in liverpool is relevant if anyone wishes to draw comparisons. Start your own thread if you don't like the wide parameters of this thread.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This thread is not about Alfie.

This thread is a general discussion about the state deciding how someone dies.
The child in liverpool is relevant if anyone wishes to draw comparisons. Start your own thread if you don't like the wide parameters of this thread.


Well its a bit tricky because the wording of your thread was regarding yourself, an adult however when it comes to children then the law changes and rightly or wrongly I also think that the ethical perspectives also change for a lot of people.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler




If the next doctor or nurse comes in and says they will shove a feeding tube down the patients throat, and you keep that medical professional from doing that, then yes, you are causing the starvation



That never really happens though, its usually a agreement that is made by consensus.



Ok well the Italian doctors do want to give a feeding tube

So there was not a consensus



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Have you any experience in caring for dying patients?

Only as a 'consumer' with relatives.
I don't need that experience to question the ethics of state.
Withdrawing fluids/nutrition is euthanasia the same as a humane shot of morphine, just less inhumane because it takes longer.
The law is inhumane regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia choices available to NHS health professionals.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: eletheia

Either way a precedent has been set this week. A court could decide the only way I am allowed to die is by removal of fluids/nutrition and I say it sucks that the law doesn't allow a dignified morphine overdose when the outcome is the same.



My mother was in hospital at 93 years old, in very ill health, capable of

eating, and food was brought to her for every meal. She refused all food

she was asked what she would like but she didnt want food.

It was her choice and they didn't try to force her, and kept her medically

hydrated. She was looked after very well for two weeks when her heart

just gave out. All that time she was kept pain free, and as comfortable

as possible.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




Withdrawing fluids/nutrition is euthanasia the same as a humane shot of morphine, just less inhumane because it takes longer.


I would agree if it was a case of just withdrawing food for someone who can eat or who would benefit from nutritional support but thats not what happens.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
This thread is not about Alfie.

This thread is a general discussion about the state deciding how someone dies.
The child in liverpool is relevant if anyone wishes to draw comparisons. Start your own thread if you don't like the wide parameters of this thread.


Well its a bit tricky because the wording of your thread was regarding yourself, an adult however when it comes to children then the law changes and rightly or wrongly I also think that the ethical perspectives also change for a lot of people.

Apologies, maybe I should have been more clear in my OP, I incorrectly assumed the title said it all.


UK legislation. Courts. End of life. Who decides?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

That is different to witholding food with the intention that a patient dies of starvation.
...and I have nothing but praise for my care from the NHS, I'm just asking questions about 'the authority' if it comes to the point a person is unable to end things under their own terms aside from starvation.
It is a reasonable question to ask and discuss.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




Withdrawing fluids/nutrition is euthanasia the same as a humane shot of morphine, just less inhumane because it takes longer.


I would agree if it was a case of just withdrawing food for someone who can eat or who would benefit from nutritional support but thats not what happens.


The lad in Liverpool then, do you support denying him nutrients/fluids when he is breathing independently?
That is euthanasia no matter which way you look at it. Euthanasia ordered by a court of law, slow and uneccessary when a morphine shot is more humane and quicker.
Withdrawal of nutrients/fluids is guaranteed to kill the patient...that is euthanasia, just inhumane because it is slow.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




That is different to witholding food with the intention that a patient dies of starvation.


THIS NEVER HAPPENS!!!!

The only time food is withheld is when a patient has a significant risk of aspiration, i.e., after a CVA or in aspiration phenumonia for example. In palliative care food is withheld when the individual can no longer physically eat or digest food.



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




The lad in Liverpool then, do you support denying him nutrients/fluids when he is breathing independently?


Can he even swallow?

I mean from what I have read he has very limited reflex to pain so I don't think he can even swallow.

Then we have to ask is his digestive system actually functional?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
In palliative care food is withheld when the individual can no longer physically eat or digest food.

Yes, euthanasia because the state has decided tube fed is no longer an option. Remove the tube then let the person die of starvation/dehydration.
Exactly the decision of the court/doctors in the case of the child in Liverpool. Euthanasia by removal of nutrients/fluid required for life.
Perhaps you disagree?



posted on Apr, 26 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy




Yes, euthanasia because the state has decided tube fed is no longer an option.


Because it won't do anything.

If someone has terminal cancer and is at the end of their life, unable to eat they will die because of the cancer not because some doctor refused to have a nurse insert a NG tube.

A septic patient does not die because they become too ill to be able to eat for themselves and then don't get a tube, they die because of the Sepsis.

They are not "starving to death" its just the underlying pathology that are killing them.

Lots of palliative patents are PEG/NG or TPN fed you make it sound so black and white, like one day the doctor says there is noting more we can do for you and all of a sudden they keep you locked in a room with no food.
edit on 26-4-2018 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join