More On Euthanasia

[Annie]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-995117_1,00.html

The Sunday Times

Coroner seeks inquiry into ‘mass euthanasia’ at hospital
by Lois Rogers, Medical Editor

A CORONER is demanding a public inquiry into claims that 11 hospital patients were deliberately starved to death. He believes that it could be Britain’s first case of forced “mass euthanasia”.
Peter Ashworth, the coroner for Derby, will open an inquest later this year into the suspicious deaths at the city’s Kingsway hospital.

He considers the matter so serious that he has written to the Department of Health asking for the inquest to be superseded by a judicial inquiry with powers to investigate practices at the hospital.

There is now increasing concern across Britain about the way hospitals appear to be hastening the deaths of elderly patients. Police in Leeds and Hampshire are also looking into similar cases.

The 11 patients, all men aged between 65 and 93, died in the Rowsley ward for the elderly at Kingsway. A review of the cases, ordered by the coroner, found evidence that their deaths may have been speeded up by withholding sufficient food.

Seems the blogsphere is starting to go hunting for articles related post Shaivo. For those with a viewpoint, this is the kind of information that should be brought to the attention of state legislators, so that hearings and guidelines can be formulated.

 

[Mr. P]

...For those with a viewpoint, this is the kind of information that should be brought to the attention of state legislators, so that hearings and guidelines can be formulated.

Or, do we prosecute these folks for murder and allow these decisions to remain a private matter?

 

[Annie]

Or, do we prosecute these folks for murder and allow these decisions to remain a private matter?

The article was from the UK, the issues pertain to all the 'advanced nations' where technology in utero is making it possible to detect; sometimes fix, sometimes not birth defects. Technology is also allowing people to live longer than expected. I think it's not much of a leap to realize that some will come to the 'belief' that poor old people are a nuisance or that their quality of life is not worth living. That is a slippery slope.

Personally I think people need to take some ownership of the technological changes that are happening so quickly now. First though, there really needs to be discussions in the media and other venues such as state legislatures. I don't think that it is reasonable to have a 22 year old deciding that if they need 'extraordinary means' to stay alive, they want to refuse. That would include electro-shock of the heart that could be brought on by trauma. They aren't getting that, instead they are seeing themselves as their 'grandparents' and not wanting it. Of course, they aren't their grandparents age either, so really are not in a position to put themselves in their shoes either.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm reminded of Eskimos..It think it was Eskimos...anyway, when the old realize they are a burden they walk away in the middle of the night and die of exposure. Different cultures, different practices, I guess. Do I want to see that in our culture? No, but I think there comes a point, especially with the technological advances, we must ask, why are we keeping someone alive, is it for us, or them just so they can die alittle later?

 

[Annie]

I'm reminded of Eskimos..It think it was Eskimos...anyway, when the old realize they are a burden they walk away in the middle of the night and die of exposure. Different cultures, different practices, I guess. Do I want to see that in our culture? No, but I think there comes a point, especially with the technological advances, we must ask, why are we keeping someone alive, is it for us, or them just so they can die alittle later?

Mr. P., I think that each community, state, country what have you will have to wrestle with these questions. For each individual family, they will have to make their choices. To my way of thinking, if I had a chronic illness or the doctors told my family that they 'could keep me alive' on machines to keep an organ functioning, well that would be a bit much. On the other hand, to withhold nourishment and hydration? No, to do so is barbaric, IMO. On the level of abortion to me, I would not physically get involved to stop those, but I will speak out and try to get the laws changed.

 

[Mr. P]

Mr. P., I think that each community, state, country what have you will have to wrestle with these questions. For each individual family, they will have to make their choices. To my way of thinking, if I had a chronic illness or the doctors told my family that they 'could keep me alive' on machines to keep an organ functioning, well that would be a bit much. On the other hand, to withhold nourishment and hydration? No, to do so is barbaric, IMO. On the level of abortion to me, I would not physically get involved to stop those, but I will speak out and try to get the laws changed.

I may not be following you here...Not sure..
On "withhold nourishment and hydration" it happens ALL the time, every day. I do look at it as life support..simple test..if ya don't have it you will die.

 

[Annie]

I may not be following you here...Not sure..
On "withhold nourishment and hydration" it happens ALL the time, every day. I do look at it as life support..simple test..if ya don't have it you will die.

Well I don't think it should be witheld, if death is not imminent. Now many very sick people stop eating. If we are speaking of hours/days, that is different. But to withold when someone is alright, with only needed food and water, no.

 

[dilloduck]

Mr. P., I think that each community, state, country what have you will have to wrestle with these questions. For each individual family, they will have to make their choices. To my way of thinking, if I had a chronic illness or the doctors told my family that they 'could keep me alive' on machines to keep an organ functioning, well that would be a bit much. On the other hand, to withhold nourishment and hydration? No, to do so is barbaric, IMO. On the level of abortion to me, I would not physically get involved to stop those, but I will speak out and try to get the laws changed.

Technology is not perfect so when a person is unable to communicate we have absolutely no PERFECT way to determine that persons level of awareness. I don't think we are quite ready as a society to have people just smothering grandma in the back yard if we find her physical condition disgusting.

 

[5stringJeff]

I may not be following you here...Not sure..
On "withhold nourishment and hydration" it happens ALL the time, every day. I do look at it as life support..simple test..if ya don't have it you will die.

So are you saying that doctors should decide who's too sick to recieve life support?

 

[freeandfun1]

I'm reminded of Eskimos..It think it was Eskimos...anyway, when the old realize they are a burden they walk away in the middle of the night and die of exposure. Different cultures, different practices, I guess. Do I want to see that in our culture? No, but I think there comes a point, especially with the technological advances, we must ask, why are we keeping someone alive, is it for us, or them just so they can die alittle later?

Key point is THEY, the sick ones, make that choice. Not somebody else.

 

[Mr. P]

So are you saying that doctors should decide who's too sick to recieve life support?

No jeff, I'm not saying that, but that happens ALL the time too..Ever hear of a DNR order, sometimes placed solely by a Doc.?

 

[dilloduck]

No jeff, I'm not saying that, but that happens ALL the time too..Ever hear of a DNR order, sometimes placed solely by a Doc.?

I think that's why Kat suggested that the question be looked into further---you wanna go by you're own choice or some ER Doc.s' ?

 

[Mr. P]

Key point is THEY, the sick ones, make that choice. Not somebody else.

Yes, I think that's true..Now flip the coin over..Is it okay for the other Eskimos to say, no you can't do that cuz we don't want ya to, we don't believe in that? Hummm

 

[Mr. P]

I think that's why Kat suggested that the question be looked into further---you wanna go by you're own choice or some ER Doc.s' ?

Mine of course..but this is not about ER Docs'...These orders are givin throughout the Hospital. Not in the ER.

 

[Annie]

I heard a doctor the other day saying to the effect that living wills were a guidepost, but neither family, nor doctors need to follow them to the letter. He was saying that if a living will asked for extraordinary means, for the most part this would be followed.

The deviations, at least from a medical point of view, seemed to be going against stated wishes of the maker of the will, when the doctors were in agreement that the person could expect a reasonable standard of life and had in all likelihood not understood the real implications of what they had written. He said something to the effect that doctors are not to be aiding in a suicide.

Again for the third or fourth time that I've heard, (2 friends that are attorneys and my dad's doc.), he reiterated that older folks needed to sign off on durable power of attorney to a loved one. That way, someone 'with capacity' can hear the pros and cons of any given treatment or assistance who would act with your best interests at heart. In the case of my parents, they named my brother and I both to that position, where we had to come to agreement. (Luckily there never were any issues, so far.)

I have found something on living wills that might interest some of you:

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache...ctor+living+wills&d=ED183EDCD0&icp=1&.intl=us

it's from Nova Scotia, but seems very much what I've been hearing on them.

 

[Annie]

Here's something that gives more info on both:

http://www.med.usf.edu/FAMILY/Health_Education_Projects/advdir-A.htm

 

[Mr. P]

I heard a doctor the other day saying to the effect that living wills were a guidepost, but neither family, nor doctors need to follow them to the letter. He was saying that if a living will asked for extraordinary means, for the most part this would be followed.

The deviations, at least from a medical point of view, seemed to be going against stated wishes of the maker of the will, when the doctors were in agreement that the person could expect a reasonable standard of life and had in all likelihood not understood the real implications of what they had written. He said something to the effect that doctors are not to be aiding in a suicide.....

Exactly...and "when the doctors were in agreement that the person could expect a reasonable standard of life", which is also why they will issue a DNR order for others.

The durable power of attorney is really the only answer, and even that may encounter resistance..But it's the best option at this time, in addition to the living will.

 

[Annie]

Exactly...and "when the doctors were in agreement that the person could expect a reasonable standard of life", which is also why they will issue a DNR order for others.

The durable power of attorney is really the only answer, and even that may encounter resistance..But it's the best option at this time, in addition to the living will.

Not exactly what I meant, he stated that Drs. might pull a DNR, but not issue one. I'm not sure if that is possible in IL. When my mom was very sick, a new doc. was brought in for something and was trying to explain that without some 'directive' from patient or family, they would have to do all that they could, to save her. We explained that she already had signed a durable power of attorney and we had signed for DNR.

DNR is extremely different than witholding medications/nutrition/hydration. Now that may differ from state-to-state, but all the more reason that in the Shaivo case, the feds should NOT have gotten involved. If the law stood, in a couple of election cycles, those 'against' life could come and turn the whole thing around.

Euthanasia is a slippery slope, so is federal intervention in state jurisdictions.

 

[dilloduck]

Mine of course..but this is not about ER Docs'...These orders are givin throughout the Hospital. Not in the ER.

My point is that ER docs DAILY make decisions to stop treating a patient in the ER because they don't think the life they would have if they recovered would be worth it. It's kept A nice little good ole boy secret. Would you like them to continue that practice or would you like a stronger definition of the law?

 

[MissileMan]

My point is that ER docs DAILY make decisions to stop treating a patient in the ER because they don't think the life they would have if they recovered would be worth it.

As well they should...that's their job. If the attending physician had decided to give up on Terry after her brain had been without oxygen for 9 minutes, that whole mess would have been avoided.

Do you think it should work differently?