Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Assisted Suicide?


Homz

Recommended Posts

Here's the slippery slope...if we decide that human life is not precious and that it's not to be protected' date=' how far off are we from doctors or government deciding eho lives and who dies?

 

[b']Parents Lose Fight With Doctors to Keep Sick Son Alive

Saturday, March 21, 2009 [/b]

 

The parents of a seriously ill baby in Britain have said they are "deeply distressed" by a legal ruling which will allow their "only and beloved son" to die.

 

The parents, known as Mr. and Mrs. T, said they planned to "enjoy what little time" they had left with their son who has a rare metabolic disorder and has suffered brain damage and major respiratory failure.

 

Last night the parents’ final possible legal avenue to keep their son alive failed when two Appeal Court judges upheld an earlier High Court ruling giving permission to doctors to allow him to die.

 

The parents said they had battled to keep their son alive because of "his humanity and inherent worth" but they now believed doctors were preparing to switch off his ventilator within the next 24 hours.

 

In a statement issued through their solicitor they said relationships with doctors and staff at the hospital became "very difficult" at the end of last year when medical staff wanted to withdraw treatment while they felt they "had to fight to ensure that he is given every possible chance."

 

The couple said there were "lots of issues which still worry us" but added: "We think we did the right thing even though we were repeatedly told it was hopeless and that we were being irresponsible in not following the medical advice that he should be allowed to die."

 

The parents, who could not face hearing the decision Friday and waited outside the court, went on: "We are and always will be convinced that despite his desperate problems his life is worthwhile and is worth preserving as long as it is possible to do so without causing him undue pain."

 

Click here to read more on this story from the Times of London.

I'm sure you will respond with some goofy picture but I will reply to this anyway. If you asked around I am sure most people (if ALL the facts about the babys condition and probability of any enjoyable life were known) would AGREE with the doctors (just like the Schiavo case). Some people need to be told when they just arent being realistic.

 

What are doctors supposed to do? Let the family keep ringing up a huge bill and take up hospital room, time and attention to let (what amounts to at this point) a piece of meat lie there? At some point reality has to set in. If it doesnt, reality needs to be forced onto these people. It will never be the bouncing baby they dreamed of. It is time for them to move on and try again. Have ANOTHER baby.

 

This family really needs to let the baby go, release themselves from the misery of its existence (if you can call it that) and move on. My hope as well is that the public wont give them too hard a time about it. I know its hard to let go of people/pets that you care about. I tried so hard with my parents beagle (that I lived with for about 5 years) to save him at the end but it just wasnt going to happen. 3 different doctors told me it just wasnt feasible. So, as his condition deteriorated (and was in obvious pain and discomfort) we took him in to be put down. I remember driving him around to the doctors frantically trying to see if anyone thought he had a shot. I was crying and also trying to stay upbeat and appear happy for him. It wasnt easy. I am just glad that when he went in to go under, he had a smile on his face and seemed relatively happy to see everyone (the whole family and wives) there with him. It made me feel alot better that he died happy and with a smile.

 

So, there ya go. My thoughts. Goofy pics in 5..4...3.....2.....1....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In situations like this the proponents of assisted suicide always pick such extreme cases, or create situations that seem so dire and sad. The truth is that these situations are not the norm. I have to agree with KSG completely with this one. If we allow doctors (and I am pro doc) to make the ultimate decision, that seems like the next logical leap would be that when someone feels I've become a BURDEN to family, or that I shouldn't suffer, the decision to end my life is taken away from me. Like I said, if the PERSON suffering wants to, I have no problem with it, though I disagree from a philisophical POV.

 

I just DO NOT want anyone making the decision to end my life but me. NO ONE.

 

Now, I understand that there may someday be a decision that has to be made, and I have a document that gives my wife the power to make that decision should I NOT be able to. In that document, I lay out specifics as to when she is able to make that decision. If the decision should be made, it should be family, not the doctor and not some POLITICIAN.

 

That's just me.

 

A case in point: recently my father in law died, and my wife was faced with making the decision to take him off life support. Thankfully, he cared enough to have a document that took some of the burden from her. That made it his decision and my wife only had to carry out his wishes. It wasn't anyone elses to make. I JUST GET SO CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO HAVE THESE HUGE DECISIONS MADE FOR THEM BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THEM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The united states is great. We vaule society as a whole but care about indivduals rights. When your beloved one is dying of pain and there is nothing you can do you (or a averge human being) The logical thing to do is to stop the pain that the one person is feeling (suicide). But we don't think logicaly in times like this, we think emotionaly and act on what we feel in our heart.

 

 

Im christian, I beilive in god's plan. Tribulations are things we have to go through everyday in life.

 

but, not everyone has the same morals so

 

If someone wants to end their life, then people should obey their wishes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In situations like this the proponents of assisted suicide always pick such extreme cases' date=' or create situations that seem so dire and sad. The truth is that these situations are not the norm. I have to agree with KSG completely with this one. If we allow doctors (and I am pro doc) to make the ultimate decision, that seems like the next logical leap would be that when someone feels I've become a BURDEN to family, or that I shouldn't suffer, the decision to end my life is taken away from me. Like I said, if the PERSON suffering wants to, I have no problem with it, though I disagree from a philisophical POV.

 

I just DO NOT want anyone making the decision to end my life but me. NO ONE.

 

Now, I understand that there may someday be a decision that has to be made, and I have a document that gives my wife the power to make that decision should I NOT be able to. In that document, I lay out specifics as to when she is able to make that decision. If the decision should be made, it should be family, not the doctor and not some POLITICIAN.

 

That's just me.

 

A case in point: recently my father in law died, and my wife was faced with making the decision to take him off life support. Thankfully, he cared enough to have a document that took some of the burden from her. That made it his decision and my wife only had to carry out his wishes. It wasn't anyone elses to make. I JUST GET SO CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO HAVE THESE HUGE DECISIONS MADE FOR THEM BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW THEM. [/quote']

 

 

Under what I support, no one would make that decision but the individual or his immediate family. "Assisted suicide," better said Euthanasia, is a better way to end life when the prognosis is bleak for most people. If you don't want it, I can understand that. But if I do want to spare my family the pain of my dying in agony and dragging them down with me, you nor any one else should stand in my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reluctant to chime in on this subject.

It hits too close to home

I believe in the sanctity of life.

My best friend growing up came from a broken family.

His life was filled with drug and alcohol abuse.

He never knew the love of a woman.

He couldn't hold down a job.

One week before his 30th birthday, he put his dog down.

Destitute, living in a VW bus in Lone Pine, CA

He took the pistol his grandfather had left him.

It was a colt .22 mag.

He said he lost his only remaining friend when he put down Duke.

Raised the revolver to his head and pulled the trigger.

Gene lay there in that bus for three days before his grandmother discovered him.

Still breathing, with his eyes wide open, unable to move.

They helicoptered him down to Riverside where he died two days later.

He was my best friend.

But drugs, alcohol, pain and his personal demons consumed him.

And in the end I was the only one who got up at his funeral and spoke.

I talked about the choices we make.

About Jesus and salvation.

I encouraged everyone there to be a pillar of strength for his family.

Then we laid him in the cold, cold ground and I walked away.

He's not in pain or fear, any more.

He's free now.

Loosed from the bonds and chains that held him for so long.

Free at last.

He was my friend, Gene.

And I miss him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Under what I support' date=' no one would make that decision but the individual or his immediate family. "Assisted suicide," better said Euthanasia, is a better way to end life when the prognosis is bleak for most people. If you don't want it, I can understand that. But if I do want to spare my family the pain of my dying in agony and dragging them down with me, you nor any one else should stand in my way. [/quote']

 

No--it's not euthanasia. Euthanasia is a doctor (or someone else) *actively* taking a person's life with the thought of ending suffering.

 

Assisted suicide, as the Oregon & Washington state laws are written is a doctor handing you a prescription for enough pain medication to kill yourself. It requires 2 separate physicians to agree that you have a terminal illness, will likely die in 6 months or less, and are mentally competent to make the decision. There are provisions to ensure that the patient is not being coerced by a family member. There are waiting periods between making the initial oral request, making a written request, and getting the prescription. Doctors are free to opt-out. Nobody is forced to write a script if they object to it. Doctors must counsel the patient about the availability of hospice care and palliative care. The patient *has* to be able to take the medication on his/her own. (Which, unfortunately, limits the availability of using it for patients with Lou Gehrig's disease, which while extremely painful, leaves the patient unable to use voluntary muscles by the time they are terminal).

 

Patients with depression or dementia would not be able to get a prescription for an overdose. And, from the stats out of Oregon, patients often ask for the script, but never use it. It's a comfort to them to know they have an "out" if it becomes unbearable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With respect: How does it seem if the situation were reversed and the child needed a life-saving surgical procedure but the parents refused to allow it?

 

IMHO, it seems that the government and society in general has a duty to protect the weakest among us and that the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would outweigh any parental right in that case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IMHO' date=' it seems that the government and society in general has a duty to protect the weakest among us and that the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would outweigh any parental right in that case...[/quote']

 

Of course, England has socialized medicine and, as you are so fond of pointing out, that means their taxes are going to pay for futile care of a child with no hope of recovery. Meanwhile, someone who *could* actually breathe on his own is *not* getting that ventilator because 2 people can't accept that their child is never going to have life, liberty, or the ability to pursue happiness. So who does that benefit? Not that child. Not society. And, if they were thinking clearly, not those parents either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I never go into coma (or a really deep sleep) with progressive nurses or doctors around me....
If a big concern of your medical treatment is the attending physicians/nurses political lean then you seriously need help because politics have completely consumed your life. Go see a shrink.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a big concern of your medical treatment is the attending physicians/nurses political lean then you seriously need help because politics have completely consumed your life. Go see a shrink.

 

Don't be so angry there bol316, it's all good...Do you need me to post some more funny pictures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homz says: "I think your gross generalizations are both offensive and utterly ridi****us. I am a liberal and an atheist. I am moral in that I wish the world to be a better place for my children. From that stand point it is always good to promote a happy, healthy, and safe environment for my self and my children. You seem to be under the false impression that religion created the concept of a moral society. Think of it like this if you screw your neighbors wife he might stick a sharp knife in your belly, thus you would be wise to understand the basics of a moral life regardless of your belief in some god concept. This misconception you promote is arrogant and I believe is stems from an insecurity of ones own beliefs. I do understand the word moral itself is derived from the Latin mores and is of religious origins, but here it is being used in a general way to describe a basic character trait."

 

It's pretty clear that you either DO NOT read or else you do not understand what you read. It is also clear that your responses are not reasoned, singular and personal. Your personal attack is also offensive; I am not a liberal or an atheist and it is my Constitutional right to believe what I do. So actually I could not care less what you think (or even if you think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...