turrifield Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I would like to know peoples views. I heard this morning that another case is going through the courts were doctors want to remove life support but the parents of the 14 month old boy don't agree. What should be done in this situation?Should it be down to the doctcrs, the relatives, the courts or some other body?Have you had any first hand expirience of this dilemma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppet Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Mmm, pretty emotive subject this one. I do have some experience in this area, although not to the extent of arguing the case in court, but I really dont want to discuss personal cases in here. Suffice to say that medical science can work minor miracles these days and there can come a point where more machines can be attached, more procedures can be carried out, more drugs can be pumped in, which will all keep the patient alive. There can seem an almost endless 'next step' which can be carried out just because the technology is there, but the patient really will never be able to support life unaided. This can in many cases lead to false hope. That said, these decisions will all be heart wrenching for the family, but the patients welfare should always come first. Different people may see the situation differently, so I really dont see much alternative to the current position where if Doctors and relatives do disagree to the exent that they feel they should pursue it in court, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 To me it boils down to what kind of life the person.. not the parents or family involed.. is having. Obviously im only making my judgement on how the story was portrayed on the news yesterday. but my thought was the baby should be left to die peacefully. The mother made a comment about how they played music, read storys to the child and how it appeared to respond.. I'm always a sceptical person.. but anyone that is under so much medication as this child was, to keep him relatively pain free, wouldnt honestly be responding to anything. And the mother understandably is taking these muscle movements as a responce as a comfort to herself.. Perhaps if I were a parent my opinion would be completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turrifield Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 I agree I think if a persons time has come they should be allowed to die peacefully no matter what age they are. society is very concerned by how a person dies when don't see to care much about how people live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 I think the NHS needs some clear guidelines about what to do when they have one "keep you alive" machine and there are two people needing. In this case could or should they stop life support to the baby that is likely never to have a good life so that they could use the maching for another patient who was likely to recover?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 To many children are kept alive after child birth with major abnormalities or illnesses who would naturally die. there should be some sort of guidelines to those you let die as they will have no quality of life and those you try to save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turrifield Posted March 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Yes too many premature babies are kept alive with modern medical techniques with terrible consiquences for the child and their family. The family are never asked if they want their childs life prolonged artificially but then often have to decide if treatment should be withdrawn to allow their baby to die. What a position to be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 This is an incredibly emotive argument - and one that really can't be positioned as black / white as there are often so many factors involved. Personally - if I were to be in a position where I would be of no other use, rather a drain on resource - I would wish to have any life support stopped and be left to die a dignified death! I absolutely see society totally caught up in a world of "western" PC'ness - and making a person live long beyond that which they should, nothing more than a drain on resources that could be positioned towards more useful means, is unfortunately where we are today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Have you ever questioned yourself over whether when a friend or relative died you could have done more? I would imagine that we have all been in this position at some time. The guilt goes on for years. The closer the person is the worse the guilt. I am not religious, but I feel that those who insist that they are should just be asked, why not let God have his will? Switch the machine off and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turrifield Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 But they would say that it's gods will that the machine exists so they must use it. Religous people have always got a get out clause it's always gods will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 .............why not let God have his will? ............... I tend to prefer the idea of letting the person involved have their will. Much easier on the conscience to think that you have done what they would have wanted. Not easy to decide with infants, but not so hard to project with adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellsbells Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 I have been in a position where my mam was on life support but all the tests done indicated that she was brain dead,this was an awful time for the family and we decided that she couldn't be kept alive and it was her time to go. We got some comfort from the fact that she carried a donor card and we donated her organs so yes the decision is a very hard and emotional one but if there is/was a god why did he hurt my mam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Hellsbells says :-'but if there is/was a god why did he hurt my mam?' This illustrates the fundamental problem with God. He could have simply programmed us all to be Christian/Muslim/etc but that would be defeating the point. Instead He gave us free will, the freedom to follow our own path so that to qualify for the divine reward we have to choose the right path. The problem is that for God to then intervene and change something promptly removes the very free will that He gave out in the first place! This means that God cannot intervene, which means that to all intents and purposes He might as well not exist at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aWordinyourEar Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 I had lunch today with a woman who discussed a friend's turmoil deciding to put down her beloved dog - "She cried for a week". This friend was terminally ill. When she took a her final turn for the worse a few months later, she told my lunch companion that she wished she could be treated with the same care for a peaceful end as was shown her dog. Instead she suffered a degrading a painful death. I've heard the argument that we treat terminally suffering animals better than humans, but this story, told with welling eyes brought home the hypocrisy of the current state of affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lec Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 I think it should be the choice of the patient. There's too much emphasis these days on keeping people alive no matter what - I sometimes think that it's because the hospitals are afraid of being sued. I would rather die with dignity than be a drain on family / NHS for days/months/years because medicine can keep me breathing. If there's no quality of life, surely you are just existing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now