h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hmmmmm

Itis a sort of 'Opt In' situation really.

If you don't express the wish that medics continue to nourish, then you should be considered to have 'Opted Out' and the clinical judgement should apply.

I haven't followed this particular judgement carefully enough for a considered opinion, but it seems to me that to prevent doctors from removing nourishement etc. means that the 'body', presumably in a non recovering vegetativve condition, can survive for .... how long?
and at what financial and materiel ( bed & facilities) cost?

Speaking personally I cannot conceive of wanting to consume resources and put my loved ones through days, months or years of anguish. If I am clinically dead, or very close to it, let me go, and let everyone get on with the rest of theit lives.

Novo

The argument against would be 'Will the patient suffer during the period of starvation?'

As I've said before - the answer is diamorphine.

Do we want this? I do!

Hi Ed

Me too!

Novo

You beat me to it there, Novo.

Everyone should have the right to say whether or not they be kept being given 'nourishment' when they are no longer able to convey that. However, I would certainly want there to be a point at which the Dr's could say he has no chance of recovery especially if keep me alive meant putting other peoples lives on hold. And of course, this is the difficult part as it put your fate straight back into the hands of the Drs.

I would also want some legal framework to stop interfering busibodies trying to stop the Dr's or others removing my feeding tubes etc.

>>"(After all - what she's really after is the recognition and esteem she will receive once she ceases to be fat)."

Whether recognition and esteem are the actual goals, if someone's impression is that they are fat when they unquestionably aren't, it is more than arguable that they are suffering from a serious (and possibly fatal) delusion.
However logical someone's reasoning may be, if it is based on manifestly false data, their conclusions must be seriously doubted.

Up the dose of dia morphine thats what most doctors would do. the person would then sleep away with peace ,but i still say no one has the right to play god .

Whether you artificially keep someone alive when they would otherwise die or indeed remove what was artificially keeping that person alive (i.e. feeding tubes) you are still playing God in both situations. It is just that people do not see that fact when you are keeping someone alive past their natural time. As soon as you put in those feeding tubes you are playing God.

But 'allowing' someone to die 'feels' wrong to some and this is where the 'playing God' enters the situation. It's a guilt thing.

It seems that 'the moral majority' have no problem playing God when it come sto keeping people alive un-naturally but not when it means allowing someone to die naturally.

Euthanasia at the request of the patient/the patient's family is not playing God. Using the patient's DNA to create an army of supersoldiers would be.

Seriously though, I am pro-euthanasia but only if there is 1) no chance that the patient will recover and 2) the patient and/or their immediate family* are in agreement.


*The wishes of the spouse can take precidence over the wishes of the parents, as parents in these situations may simply be in denial about their sons/daughters condition.

Point of information: What on earth does 'Playing God' mean in any of the above examples?

If we accept that there is a God to play, then we're saying that religious precepts should be predominant in the argument. If we're atheists (as I am), we say that God has nothing to do with it either way.

<>



In the same way that you need to refer to yourself as an atheist. How can - or why should - people be seen as 'a-something' that doesn't exist for them?

az

Arguably 'playing God' would be selecting people to live or die regardless of their medical condition.

Every situation is different, and must be considered independently. We've been talking about the most absolute case (vegetative state, zero chance of recovery), but what about the rest of the continuum? What about, for instance, a situation where a particularly dangerous procedure is available which has a slight chance of saving the life and restoring consciousness, with a strong potential for horrible side-effects? How do you record your preference when you're already unconscious?

The best we can do is have a general conversation about these topics with the people close to us, and let them decide for us when the time comes. I am perfectly happy to let my wife decide for me if I'm not in a position to decide for myself. If I didn't trust her with this kind of decision, I wouldn't have married her.

Well if it is the patient ,then his or her mind is still active so why should they want to end there life ,

There has also been the odd one that has pulled through after being weeks in a comma, but that has been very rare but will be on the minds of the patients next of kin ,its the thing of letting go, do you in your own mind, think your doing the right thing , everyone differs and it is a big thing to live with .

<>

Because they are in great pain, or have an irreversible degenerative body, or the mind is "trapped" in a nonfunctioning body?

<>

Quite so. That's why such decisions are both difficult and controversial - and why discussions that clarify the issues are important.

On the subject of "playing God" this is often shorthand way of expressing the idea that there is "a natural order of things", and I don't think it's necessary to believe in God to have, rightly or wrongly, this sort of disquiet.

Noggin

Interesting story, Edward...
<>
This surprises me greatly, that nutrition is regarded as treatment that can be withdrawn! I am glad for Mr Burke that he has managed to get his wishes on record, before he ends up in the position of not being able to communicate! Clearly, the patient should be the arbiter - no one else, and to prevent another Terri Schiavo case, the only wishes that should be taken into account are those attested to by a number of people, and expressed regarding that precise situation - not just some vague comment made while watching a movie!

I've been criticised for bringing TV into it, but an episode of E.R we watched last night is very relevant. The story concerned a 35 year old woman who had had an ischaemic stroke. There was a potentially dangerous treatment that could be tried, and the staff were asking her husband if he would give his consent. The woman, who was perfectly conscious but totally unable to communicate, was having her thoughts conveyed as a voice-over. The husband was wavering. "Let her die, don't try the treatment, she wouldn't want to live in these circumstances."
She managed to wave her hand, he went and looked into her eyes, and she was screaming in voice-over "Have some balls! Consent to the operation!" Miraculously, he gave consent and the operation was performed and she recovered. But it was a near thing!
Because there is a high risk of stroke in our family, I plan to make a communication board (in case it should ever be needed) an exercise that a tutor on my disabilities course suggested, and make clear my wishes in case of ending up like my father - unable to communicate. (He died within a week anyway, which was lucky - none of us ever had to make any decisions regarding his care.)
<>
It's still his/her decision, and if there are no economic considerations, s/he should be allowed the treatment s/he desires, providing the risks are made clear.
The anorexic is clearly another matter!

<>

Exactly! It may seem to us that a particular person's life is hellish (paralysed, dependent etc) but to them (and I am speaking here about *some* people I have met) their lives are worthwhile to them...

<<*The wishes of the spouse can take precidence over the wishes of the parents, as parents in these situations may simply be in denial about their sons/daughters condition.>>

This makes me seriously glad that I don't have a spouse! (Although technically I do - even after 25 years I am not divorced... I hope *he* couldn't butt in!) If I was in this sort of situation, the decision would, I hope, be made by my sisters and my sons, and I trust them. Partners and spouses on the other hand, have known the patient only a while, and many have other motives they won't cop to... I have enough contact and conversation with blood relatives that they know what I would want... and as two of my children are in the medical profession, I trust that they might be more realistic than I might be - hence denial is less likely in their case, than any new and hypothetical spouse.. (I am thinking of a particular person here, someone I have recently gone out with...)

Not being argumentative or anything, Apple, but you and I are in directly opposing situations in that regard. My mother is a vicious, spiteful woman, whose beliefs on such matters run counter to my own, and I've done everything in my power to make sure she has no legal right to interfere in my affairs. I guess it helps that we don't speak, and I have my grandmother and uncle listed as my "next of kin" on any pertinent legal documents.

On the other hand, while my partner (hopefully my eventual spouse) has only been part of my life for a couple of years, I feel I know and trust him enough (and vice versa) that I can put that kind of decision in his hands and he'll honor what I would have wished. I'd venture to guess that most people's partners have no hidden agenda(s).

I'm not so naive as to think that all relationships are good or healthy, or that every partner has the most honest of intentions. But I can't let myself be so jaded as to think I couldn't trust my life partner with those decisions. I certainly couldn't trust my family. We're polar opposites in regards to faith, beliefs and such. You're very fortunate to have children you trust to make the most realistic decision in any case.

Well I would think that in order to marry someone (spouse) you would have to trust them in a pretty big way. I don't know if many people have that with parents and siblings, who they don't choose, but are just kind of stuck with from the off, if you see what I mean?

I'd be interested in how the wishes of separated couples, either in the process of divorce or otherwise, are dealt with.

I think in most places cohabitants have barely any of the rights of married couples of none.

Peoples' experiences differ so much, don't they, Psychocandy? I am not sure I'd have 100% trusted my mother, but she died 25 years ago, and as quickly as my father, so we never had to decide anything regarding them - luckily! (I think I know what my father would have wanted, but my Mum was always an enigma to me.)

Ex-husbands however - !

Yes, I am lucky in my children - although I am not sure they'd agree! (If there was any denial, it'd come from the youngest one, I think, who wouldn't want to face me being sick.) He refuses to discuss any such things now...