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

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He's been kept alive for over a year with nutrients provided however they have been. The court has ordered for that method of providing nutrients to cease which will of course result in euthanasia through starvation or dehydration.
The state effectively considers starvation/dehydration with the intent to end life acceptable but a morphine dose is not.
It is inhumane unless you have a good case to argue why a morphine shot is not less inhumane?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
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.

Nutrients/fluid are keeping the lad in Liverpool alive. The state has ordered for that to stop to kill him. It is cruel and inhumane euthanasia when a morphine shot would do the trick without suffering.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I agree with you that there are times when it would be kinder to euthanise.

However you are flat out wrong to argue that withdrawing nutritional support is euthanasia.

Its not, its just sadly part of the process of dying.

You keep bringing up "that lad in Liverpool", trying to use this dying kid to prove your point, because he fits in with your agenda.

Take him out of the equation and your entire argument falls to bits because its simply not true and you are twisting this poor boys condition to support your own ignorant argument.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So long as the child in Liverpool is able to independently breathe with ocassional mouth to mouth assistance from the parents, then removing nutrients/fluid with the knowledge it actually will kill him absolutely is euthanasia. Why else remove fluids/nutrients required for life?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Dude I am done banging my head of a wall with this circular argument.

I have said what I have to say I am leaving it at that.

If you want to continue to believe in this fantasy that the NHS is running around euthanising patients by refusing to provide them with food then go for it. If you are really that ignorant there is little I can do to change that.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Take him out of the equation and your entire argument falls to bits because its simply not true and you are twisting this poor boys condition to support your own ignorant argument.

Oh calm down with the emotive argument. My argument is sound, reasoned and rational.
You seem emotionally inspired and less than reasoned.
Removal of fluids/nutrition with the intention to end life IS euthanasia ordered by a court, just inhumane compared to giving a morphine shot.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

My argument is sound, reasoned and rational.

Said the guy who believes the NHS just stops feeding patients to kill them.....

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

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.

A precedent has not been set..... Every case is treated individually counsulting

with patient and family discussing treatments and alternatives and progress

on a regular basis.

I cannot fault our NHS. And I have had occasion to use it quite often.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If you want to continue to believe in this fantasy that the NHS is running around euthanising patients by refusing to provide them with food then go for it. If you are really that ignorant there is little I can do to change that.

Again you are being overly emotional and inventing arguments that I haven't made.
My OP was about law and the state deciding how people die, not the NHS who are directed by a court and legislation.
Take a breath and read my exact words again before giving them incorrect added value in your mind.

...the lad in Liverpool has effectively been given the death sentence by the court though by ordering that the doctors starve or dehydrate him to death. You cannot deny that.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

My argument is sound, reasoned and rational.

Said the guy who believes the NHS just stops feeding patients to kill them.....

Again, you give added value to my comments which is inaccurate by a long shot. I spoke of 'the state' not the NHS.
You seem unable to debate with reason, only emotion.

a reply to: eletheia

A precedent is always set when a court makes a judgement. It is a foundation of UK justice.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

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.

I wouldnt worry about them They are all envious of our wonderful

health care.

This Alfie case is all one sided as in marriages ......no one knows what goes

on behind closed doors. NO one knows the complete case/story and it is

being played out for people with their own agenda's.

originally posted by: eletheia
I wouldnt worry about them

They are all envious of our wonderful

health care.

Not me, I'm a happy NHS service user. My points stand, if doctors wish me to die I want a morphine shot not withdrawal of nutrients to die slowly. That is inhumane euthanasia.

EDIT
Unfortunately for health professionals in the NHS the humane morphine shot is not an option so starvation/dehydration is the only legal way to end the life of someone who can breathe independently.
I argue that UK law is wrong in that regard.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

The law is inhumane regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia choices available to NHS health professionals.

Just been watching TV and I have only two words to say to you about ^^^^^

*Doctor Shipman*

a reply to: eletheia

Behave, he was a psycho killer!!

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

The law is inhumane regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia choices available to NHS health professionals.

Just been watching TV and I have only two words to say to you about ^^^^^

*Doctor Shipman*

What?

Dr Shipman was a serial killer who took advantage of the system, has it was then.

What are you trying to say?

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

The law is inhumane regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia choices available to NHS health professionals.

Just been watching TV and I have only two words to say to you about ^^^^^

*Doctor Shipman*

What?

Dr Shipman was a serial killer who took advantage of the system, has it was then.

What are you trying to say?

Yeah, I am equally as confused about any link to this discussion with Shipman the psycho doctor who killed patients for his own reasons.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy


So long as the child in Liverpool is able to independently breathe with ocassional mouth to mouth assistance from the parents, then removing nutrients/fluid with the knowledge it actually will kill him absolutely is euthanasia. Why else remove fluids/nutrients required for life?

Lets face it you have bit of information and hearsay from various sources

here there and every where......and like *Chinese Whispers* by the time you

got them they are twisted out of ALL recognisation


I dont think there are any qualified doctors on these threads? so it is ALL

supposition devoid of FACT?


The truth will out eventually and IF anything has been underhanded there

will be cases made? (I even cynically wonder if the ground it being set for it?)

Starving to death is not a good way to go.

Ask Terri Schiavo.

originally posted by: eletheia
Lets face it you have bit of information and hearsay from various sources

Agreed. The same information you have which helps you form your own opinion.
I disagree with yours and explained why I do based on my own interpretation of the same information you have access to.

You cannot say you are right and I am wrong. Same as the reason I do not say you are wrong and I am right.
My position in this thread has been entirely reasoned and rational.