Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Where do we draw a line?
Thread: Where do we draw a line? This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 18, 2009 10:59 AM

How is the legal situation about passive euthanasy (closing down machines) in the US? Does a person have the right to refuse living and turn off the equipment? If yes, a judge has no legal grounds to force AN ADULT to ANY kind of treatment. If no, then it looks different, though.
However, passive euthanasy is different from treatment. If a certain treatment is virtually guaranteed to safe the life, then we are approaching the realm of suicide. It doesn't really matter whether you want to die because you don't want to suffer what is necessary to become healthy again or whether you want to die because it's simply painful to do so or you just can't stand life anymore.
While the attitude may be debatable with a view on adults, there doesn't seem to be any reason NOT to try and save the life of a child when it wants to throw it away volintarily - attitudes change, especially with children, and especially with children there's always the chance of misinformation, overreacting and so on.

Also it touches this question:

Can we really say that parents who educate children into believing, that it is better to die than to get a certain kind of help, are acting in the best interest of them? Would you want an education that teaches children to commit suicide in certain cases?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted May 18, 2009 11:10 AM
Edited by Mytical at 11:25, 18 May 2009.

There are actually two laws about this.  One covers 'assisted suicide' and is called illegal.  Doctors, nurses, loved ones, etc can not help a patient commit 'suicide'.

However... if somebody is in a comma and unable to decide for themselves, their spouses/parents/guardians (ie whoever would be considered the closest 'kin' to the person, or in case of a will whoever is given authrority to do so) can legally 'pull the plug' unless the person creates a 'living will' forbidding it explicitly.

Which is a bit odd to me.  The patient can not 'choose' to die and get help doing so, but somebody else can 'choose' for them should they be unable to and it be legal.

Edit : Oh and there is a DNR (stands for Do Not Resuccitate (spelling?)) clause.  Basically means no CPR, no being hooked up to machines, no surgery, etc unless the person is conscious and expressly gives permission.  This is perfectly legal and the hospitals are not held responsible if a person with a DNR dies.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 18, 2009 11:39 AM

Yes, these things are not very clear-cut.
Other things are possible, though.
If it is allowed to reject a treatment, and doctors still give you a blood transfusion, if the patient survives he can probably sue the hospital.

In any case I don't think that these things are relevant in this particular case. The question is how the law IS, not how it should be, and apparently
a) the judge had pretty well-founded doubts that the "decision" of the boy was based on accurate informations and
b) that the parents (who claim to "only" back-up the decision of the boy, but are obviously not only responsible for the boy's decision, making him part of this absurd "religion", but could simply command him to do what they want) have left the grounds of what could be called "acting as guardians of the interests of their child".

The thing here is, that it wasn't the judge who put all this forth. Someone else did, probably the hospital in combination with some organization for the protection of children, and the judge MUST REVIEW the case. That's the important thing. Some put it forth, and the judge has to review it.
Apparently, in this case the judge doesn't want to run the risk of standing by and doing nothing while a possibly misinformed and misguided child runs blindly into his own demise.
Which is understandable and right.
Would you in his position, if you were suspicious about the parents, maybe even their sanity, likely about the motives of their "spiritual leader", would you wash it off of you? Not my jurisdiction? Shall the brat die if he absolutely want to?
Or would you maybe try to cut the knot, ordering another check to see what the actual and current health situation of the boy is, how things have developed and so on.
I'd do as the judge did, as far as I know the facts. And I don't find fault in his bevaviour. The chance to die isn't running away on the buy, the chance to live may very well.

So. Do you find fault in the judge's sentence to do another medical check on the boy?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted May 18, 2009 11:45 AM

To me it is one of those many many grey areas.  I honestly don't know if I agree or not.  On one hand, protecting life is important..sometimes even those who don't want to be protected.  However, freedom is important also.  If I had to pick a side, however, I would have to say..I agree with the check up.  I don't agree that the boy should be forced to take treatment however.  IF there is a possibility of a contagion, then the boy should be secluded so nobody else is infected IF he refuses treatment.  There are very very few circumstances where I would agree with people being forced to undergo medical treatment against their wishes.
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 18, 2009 11:58 AM

Ah.
But would you agree that the boy should be INFORMED of the things he's actually deciding? Of his actual state, of the progress the illness has made? Of the consequences his decision may have? And so on?
It's a difference of whether the boy says:
I don't want this treatment, or
I know that I'm terminally ill and that I may die soon due to my decision, but I don't want this treatment. I do this against the advice of all treating doctors and trust in my spiritual leader.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Mytical
Mytical


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
posted May 18, 2009 12:04 PM
Edited by Mytical at 12:07, 18 May 2009.

Oh yes, all the information SHOULD be given to him.  On that I can agree fully.  It's like Aids education.  We shouldn't just tell a child "Sex is bad, you might get sick with Aids." but actually explain Aids, what it is how to not catch it, what it can do to them, etc.  Once they have the information, they have to decide for themselves.

Edit : Some call me a Liberal.  I prefer to think of myself as a Centrist with some Liberal ideas.  I KNOW that there are good laws, and that somethings MUST for our safety be.  I don't want total 'anarchy' and freedom.  Just to err on the side of caution .
____________
Message received.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 18, 2009 12:40 PM

Exactly.

However, if you read the article, the judge's impression is, that the boy has no idea about how serious his situation is.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 18, 2009 04:16 PM

Quote:
Coddling a child is actually the worse thing one can do.  It creates adults with a sense of entitlement who do not know enough or realise what the real world is like.  Sometimes a child has to skin its knee, or get some bruises playing.  Helps them learn their limitations.  It is tragic when this goes too far and they die, but putting them in a bubble and putting that bubble in a padded room is not the way to go.


Life is to be lived. There are dangers and rewards everywhre. I want to live my life and not be the puppet at the end of some judge's strings.

Quote:
b) that the parents (who claim to "only" back-up the decision of the boy, but are obviously not only responsible for the boy's decision, making him part of this absurd "religion", but could simply command him to do what they want) have left the grounds of what could be called "acting as guardians of the interests of their child".


You consider their religion to be absurb and they consider yours to be absurb. They have the right to practice their religion. You have the right to practice yours.

The parents are supporting the child's decision. You don't agree with their decision but the child is not yours. They love the child and I am sure they don't want the child to die. They want the best for their child.

Forcing the child to undergo treatment is wrong. It is so strange to me that some people think a girl has a right to get an abortion because she has a right to control her own body but somehow boys don't have a right to control their body.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 18, 2009 04:49 PM

MODERATION PLEASE:

I've not counted how many times the issue "abortion with 13-year-olds" has been mentioned in this thread. If Elodin is interested in debating this he should make a separate thread about it.
Or can someone tell me the significance of that for this case of a kid having cancer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Could someone please explain Elodin as well that there is a difference between a religion and some mumbo-jumbo a person calls that way.
Elodin seems to think that if a person goes ahead and says "I have godly visions when I smoke dope, let this be the foundation of our new religion", then this religion has to be considered sacred and their practices have to be accepted, however stupid they may be.

This is not the case, however. You cannot just call every nonsense religion and then call on freedom of religion, that's indeed absurd.

I seem to be unable to communicate this notion.

In any case, everyone can belief what they want, provided they don't break any laws or hurt someone. As parents your highest obligation IN THIS WORLD (which is what the state is dealing with) is to do everything you can for the health and continued health of your child. Yes, OBLIGATION. You cannot, for example, force a child to fast for religious reasons beyond that what is ok without hurting the health of the child, no matter the religion involved.
You also cannot only half the truth about something and then calling on a decision made based on half the truth. This is against the law, since it is deceit. If you tell a child "you will be well without that stuff they want to give you, you are not that ill at all", you are deceiving the child into a decision based on what are essential lies and promises the promising have no control about.

Which is ALL that matters in this respect. If the judge suspects something like that he is OBLIGED to act accordingly.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfsburg
Wolfsburg


Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
posted May 18, 2009 04:51 PM
Edited by Wolfsburg at 16:59, 18 May 2009.

On the matter of blood transfusion to Jehova's whitnesses and some few other religious sects:

We have two completely different situations here:

1 - The patient comes to the hospital in a condition that requires immediate blood transfusion. The patient has no or little consciousness or mental status deficiency, and claims he will not undergo the suggested therapy, not even for the cost of his life.

2 - Patient arrives torporous, unanswering and in such a condition that he will require by all means an immediate blood transfusion. Relatives claim he would not accept the treatment out of religious reasons.

First case. Although being legally protected in Brazil to proceed the therapy anyway, I think thats absolutely inadequate. I shall not save the patients bodily form at cost of his "salvation". A patient thats presented with the perspective of life and death normally gets exactly how serious is the situation. Many of them back down and accept the transfusion. But some are heavily convinced that will jeopardize their whole situation on judgements day.

In that case I would preferably respect their autonomy and offer them a document of responsibility claim to be signed, so that they legally pronounce themselves as denying proper treatment dispites of his high chances of a letal event.

Second case, I would proceed with the therapy. Unless the patient would have a document signed and testified by a local authority, I would'nt take the family's claim into consideration. An unconcious patient has no autonomy to decide for himself, which makes us doctors legally and moraly responsible for determining the best therapeutical possibilities.

The family would be simply not to decide over the man's life by shear argumentation.

W.

P.S - When the patient wakes up and discovers they are forever doomed, they may bring to consideration even someone as strict as their deity will not fully blame someone who was unable to defend themselves. They may as well put the blame on me. I gladly take those sins to my own backpack since I am going to hell anyway for apostasy.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 18, 2009 07:48 PM
Edited by Elodin at 19:50, 18 May 2009.

Quote:
MODERATION PLEASE:

I've not counted how many times the issue "abortion with 13-year-olds" has been mentioned in this thread. If Elodin is interested in debating this he should make a separate thread about it.
Or can someone tell me the significance of that for this case of a kid having cancer?



JJ I have already stated the significance several times. The boy has as much right to control his own body as a girl does. The law allows a 13 year old girl to get an abortion evern without parental consent becaus it says the girl has a right to control her own body. Now, can you justify why girls have a right to control their body but  boys do not?

Obviously I am not trying to debate if an abortion is right or wrong in this thread. I am talking about the right to control one's body for both sexes and applying the law consistnatly.

As for repeating things, perhaps you have not noticed you you have repeated things yourslelf. Should I go back and list the things you have repeated? I think that would be silly myself.

Quote:
Could someone please explain Elodin as well that there is a difference between a religion and some mumbo-jumbo a person calls that way.


Can you explain to me who made you the judge of what religious believfs a person can have and what the correct doctrine for religion is? Are you claiming to be the authoritative spokesman for God to decide what is "mumbo jumbo" religion that you have mentioned several times?

Quote:
This is not the case, however. You cannot just call every nonsense religion and then call on freedom of religion, that's indeed absurd.


So you ae now the judge of what beliefs a religion can hold and who gets to exercise freedom of religion?  You get to decide what religion is "nonsense" and what religion is ok? You get to decide if a person has had a revelation from God and if he has not?

I think certain religions are very wrong but I also think everyone has a right to practice their religion even if I don't agree with them.

Quote:
Second case, I would proceed with the therapy. Unless the patient would have a document signed and testified by a local authority, I would'nt take the family's claim into consideration. An unconcious patient has no autonomy to decide for himself, which makes us doctors legally and moraly responsible for determining the best therapeutical possibilities.


That is reasonable if the patient has not made his wished known in writing or no one present has his power of attorney. A parent thoough automatically has power of attorney to make decisionf for their child.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted May 18, 2009 08:02 PM

Quote:
You also cannot only half the truth about something and then calling on a decision made based on half the truth. This is against the law, since it is deceit. If you tell a child "you will be well without that stuff they want to give you, you are not that ill at all", you are deceiving the child into a decision based on what are essential lies and promises the promising have no control about.
??? What if the parents actually truly believe that? How can it be 'deceit'?
What do you want them to? Speak with the opinions of someone else?
If you want to give the child information from the perspective of, let's say, a doctor, then put the doctor say it to him, not force the parents to say what they don't believe. That would be manipulation. Also against the law.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 18, 2009 08:48 PM

Quote:
Quote:
You also cannot only half the truth about something and then calling on a decision made based on half the truth. This is against the law, since it is deceit. If you tell a child "you will be well without that stuff they want to give you, you are not that ill at all", you are deceiving the child into a decision based on what are essential lies and promises the promising have no control about.
??? What if the parents actually truly believe that? How can it be 'deceit'?

Are you kidding? They went to the doctors - for a reason. They doctors diagnosed something. They will have expressed their opinion that their child is seriously and maybe even terminally ill. Why wouldn't they believe that?

@Elodin
Your constitution mentions "religion". Nowadays, for legal purposes "religion" must clearly be defined, because of that point and because of the monetary consequences it has when something is officially acknowledged as a religion. It's not me who is defining that, it's your judges. It MUST be defined, lest not that happens what I try to describe to you so unsuccessfully: that every whim of every person is legally proteced as religious freedom.

You give wide berth to the point I made after that:
Quote:
In any case, everyone can belief what they want, provided they don't break any laws or hurt someone. As parents your highest obligation IN THIS WORLD (which is what the state is dealing with) is to do everything you can for the health and continued health of your child. Yes, OBLIGATION. You cannot, for example, force a child to fast for religious reasons beyond that what is ok without hurting the health of the child, no matter the religion involved.


I repeat, in the current case the judge has every reason to suspect that the boy simply not knowing what he is doing.

Which is why the abortion thing is something else completely. The case of the boy has nothing to do with control over his own body - it has something to do with a founded suspicion that the boy isn't informed - and informational talk is, as far as I know mandatory in all cases of pregnancies and possible abortions

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfsburg
Wolfsburg


Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
posted May 18, 2009 08:52 PM

Quote:
That is reasonable if the patient has not made his wished known in writing or no one present has his power of attorney. A parent thoough automatically has power of attorney to make decisionf for their child.

Phew... This is indeed a HIGHLY hipothetical situation, where two parents are willing to risk their child's life without proper treatment. What is usually seen is that even harcore sectarists question their dogmas once their child's life is at stake. But in case they don't, I'd do the blood transfusion anyway. Although exercising power of attorneys over their child, they still cannot deny their child life-saving therapy. If they get too frisky on the matter, I simply have them removed from the intesive care station. Just about any brazilian court would support my decision on that one.

Im simply being consequent here. If a country does not allow euthanasia even in the presence of WRITTEN CONSENT, they will simply not allow such INVOLUNTARY passive euthanasia. Lest they allow the husband of a comatous terminal-cancer patient to turn off her life-support devices as well.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted May 18, 2009 09:12 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 21:12, 18 May 2009.

Quote:
Are you kidding? They went to the doctors - for a reason. They doctors diagnosed something. They will have expressed their opinion that their child is seriously and maybe even terminally ill. Why wouldn't they believe that?
Of course they know what the doctors said. What I meant was that they do not believe he is ill at all, or rather, he can be treated in other means or maybe it will go away somehow (let's not get into their beliefs, for example).

So why would it be deceit? Yes they can tell their kid that "the doctor said X", and whatever, that's not the same as them saying X.

And hiding information isn't deceit. Even though the best the judge should be able to do, like I said, is to simply force to INFORM the child about what the doctor said. That's all.

Quote:
If a country does not allow euthanasia even in the presence of WRITTEN CONSENT
and you think that's good?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 18, 2009 10:02 PM

Death, stop giving me your usual hair-splitting thing.

We are talking about life and death here, not about what the parents believe or not. If the parents believe their son can be cured by wishing him healthy they are still guilty of having not given him the proper medical care, medical care that was suggested by doctors who know their job and whom those parents visited to examine and treat their son.
If you stumble upon a person who needs your attention because otherwise he'll die - let's say someone is thirsting or starving to death or bleeding from a wound and is helpless - it doesn't matter whether you believe that God will take of him if he's meant to survive. The law obliges you to help, and if you claim you couldn't help you are supposed to have reasons that can be proven.

If they did NOT tell their son everything known to them, then they are simply guilty of influencing his decision in an inappropriate way.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Wolfsburg
Wolfsburg


Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
posted May 18, 2009 10:07 PM

Quote:

Quote:
If a country does not allow euthanasia even in the presence of WRITTEN CONSENT
and you think that's good?

What do you think, Death? Cmon, you know me better than that by know.

Of course I think denying someone voluntary euthanasia is awful. But a country's legislation gotta be consequent. And denying a child its best viable therapy under the risk of death is at the best of the definitions, involuntary passive euthanasia.

In that case, I just use legislation to my favor and treat the child.

Im so serious about euthanasia that I got a pact with a great friend of mine, whos also a physician. In case one of us develops locked-in syndrome or similar condition we shall procede active euthanasia on the other, despites country legislation.

That means attenuated murder sentence. But it being first offense, plus universitary study, plus good-behavior, we would only get about 3-5 years in jail. We like each other dearly. And I would face a couple of years in jail for him without a second thought.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted May 18, 2009 11:14 PM

Quote:
We are talking about life and death here
You assume that everyone has the same outlook on life. Not only that, but some people would rather die than commit certain acts (not applicable in this case mind you, just giving examples). Not everyone puts life at the cost of anything else. There are even those who commit suicide, and no, not all of them are "mentally handicapped".

Saying they have a "problem" or "mental problem" or "health problem" or whatever people disguise it when someone doesn't share the same values for life or whatever other things is hypocrisy.

Mind you, of course this doesn't apply here, since the parents do not believe at all they are harming their child. It was just a much more extreme example for reference.

Quote:
If they did NOT tell their son everything known to them, then they are simply guilty of influencing his decision in an inappropriate way.
Like I said, the judge can only force the information, not the act of treating him.

Quote:
Of course I think denying someone voluntary euthanasia is awful. But a country's legislation gotta be consequent. And denying a child its best viable therapy under the risk of death is at the best of the definitions, involuntary passive euthanasia.

In that case, I just use legislation to my favor and treat the child.
Yes but that's not the point. I mean anyone can use certain situations to their advantage but that doesn't talk about how such situations came to be or how they're supposed to me etc... which is what we're discussing.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 19, 2009 12:37 AM

Quote:
Your constitution mentions "religion". Nowadays, for legal purposes "religion" must clearly be defined, because of that point and because of the monetary consequences it has when something is officially acknowledged as a religion. It's not me who is defining that, it's your judges. It MUST be defined, lest not that happens what I try to describe to you so unsuccessfully: that every whim of every person is legally proteced as religious freedom.


Nothing in the US Constitution sets forth what is necessary for a set of beliefs to be called a religion. If it is a religion to you it is a religion.

It is religion that the government does not agree with that must be protected, not religion that the governemtn agrees with.

Thre can be a religion that only one person in the whole US believes in and the Constitution protects that person's religious beliefs as much as the largest religion in the US.

The government can't decide that my "whim" is not a valid religious belief.

Quote:
In any case, everyone can belief what they want, provided they don't break any laws or hurt someone. As parents your highest obligation IN THIS WORLD (which is what the state is dealing with) is to do everything you can for the health and continued health of your child. Yes, OBLIGATION. You cannot, for example, force a child to fast for religious reasons beyond that what is ok without hurting the health of the child, no matter the religion involved.


You are contradicting youself. You are saying the boy is not free to believe and practice what he wants even though his refusal of treatment can only hurt himself.

The parents are protecting their child. They just are not converting to your religion and forcing him to convert to your religion.

You may have forgotten that the 13 year old boy initially underwent chemotheropy. He decided he didn't want to do it anymore and rejected furthur treatment in favor of natural treatment. That is his right. You don't have a right to control his body.

You are contradicting yourself again in saying the parent can't force a child to fast but the state can force a child to undergo a medical treatment. The state is not a god no matter how much state beaurocrats thinks it is.

But this is about the state forcing a child to act against his will, not parents doing so.

Quote:
Which is why the abortion thing is something else completely. The case of the boy has nothing to do with control over his own body


No, it is the same issue. You are talking about the state having a right to even use physical force to force the child to receive a medical treatment. I recall you saying it is wrong for a parent to spank his child but you seem to think it is ok for the state to use force to impose its will on the child.

It certainly sounds to me like you are saying the boy has no right to control his own body but that a girl getting an abortion does.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted May 19, 2009 03:53 AM bonus applied by Mytical on 19 May 2009.

I haven't been following this thread and only quickly glanced at it a few times. But on the subject of passive euthanasia as it's being called, I've been through this before with my father. Briefly what happened is that his doctor wanted to "pull the plug". There are several other issues surrounding this as well.

We not only went through it ourselves, but in the process talked to a lot of other people, mostly older people whom I think better understood what we were going through, and who gave us insight into their own feelings on aging, dieing and quality of life issues.

I might also note that as people get older, this stuff becomes more common discussion simply because it's more likely to happen as we age. As a matter of fact, my guess is that the majority of people will run into this situation at least once in their life. They will need to make life and death decisions for someone they love.

This is when all these issues become very real and you must come face to face with your own morals, ethics and strong emotions. You may find that you don't even agree with yourself when you suddenly discover that your emotions are far more powerful than whatever morals and ethics you thought you so firmly believed in.

You will need to make decisions with a serious lack of medical and legal knowledge. You will need to make decisions in cooperation with the doctors and other loved ones. And you will need to make decisions when other family members or doctors strongly disagree with you. It's even likely that the doctors themselves won't agree with each other. Different doctors and nurses may tell you completely different things. You might find the cardiologist telling you not to listen to the neurologist, and the neurologist telling you not to listen to the family physician, and the family physician saying he best knows the patient and has previously discussed these life and death issues with him/her.

And yet, even with all the morals, extreme emotions, lack of information and conflicting information, you have no choice, you still must make a decision, knowing full well that not making the decision is still making a passive decision. You can't get out of it, you must face it. It's no longer some philosophical discussion on law or ethics, it's very very real and you must act. Your loved one will live or die by your decision.



Now on to a few of the more mundane specifics that are involved.

First, in the US there is what are called advanced directives. Advanced directives are legal documents which a person signs that give advanced instructions about what they would like to be done in situations where they are unable to make their own decisions at that time. I bolded that for a good reason which I will get to in a bit.

The most well known advanced directive is the will. In a will you state what you would like to happen after your death. In a "Living" Will you state what you would like to happen in the situation where you are still alive, but you can't speak for yourself and there is no reasonable chance of recovery. There are various types of Power of Attorney (POA) in which you can give full or partial power to someone else to make decision on your behalf, such as legal, financial, or medical decisions. There is also something known as the DNR, Do Not Resuscitate. I suspect that in total there are probably hundreds of advanced directives, but these are the most common.

A standard will is pretty much what you think it is. It gives instructions on how to deal with your estate, who will be the executor (the person who carries out your instructions and deals with probate), and possibly many other things.

Something related to the will, but technically not part of the estate, is POD and TOD, which stands for Payable On Death, and Transferable On Death. An example of a POD is for a bank account when you declare beneficiaries who will receive the money from the account when you die. TOD is similar, but deals with non cash equivalents like stocks and bonds. Instead of selling the stocks or bonds and paying the beneficiaries in cash, the stocks or bonds themselves are transferred. (I understand this isn't directly related to the subject, but just for completeness since these all go together and are often signed at the same time.)

Powers if attorney are also pretty straight forward. The person appointed as POA has the legal right to act on behalf of the person they represent. There will likely be limitations on the type of things they can make decisions on.

Now we are getting into a little more tricky area. DNRs and Living Wills.

DNRs are slightly easier to understand once it's explained. Do Not Resuscitate means just what it says. Resuscitate meaning to bring back to life. It's important to understand that the DNR *ONLY* comes into play if the person is already medically dead, meaning the heart has stopped or they have stopped breathing. The most common example of this is what you see on TV when they use the metal paddles to shock someone's heart into beating again. The DNR may be signed ahead of time by the person themself, or more likely signed by a family member during an emergency.

In the US, advanced directives are governed by state law, but I suspect there are federal guidelines. In my state it's required by law for a hospital to present the DNR form to family members or POA for any patient with even relatively non-life threatening conditions.

If there is no DNR signed, I think the default is for the doctors to take any reasonable measures to save the person's life. Note that the term Do Not Resuscitate implies "Do Not", but it gives both choices, Do or Do Not. There are various levels on the DNR document, the one I signed had four levels. The levels were basically how far the doctors will or will not go to resuscitate someone, ranging from doing everything they can to save the person, to doing nothing at all.


Now for the living will. This is the "pull the plug" document. First, this is a legal document and the doctors and hospital legally MUST adhere to it.

The most common form of Living Will states that if someone has some kind of medical condition in which, 1) the person can not give instructions themself, and 2) there is no reasonable chance of recovery, then treatment is to be withheld. Sometimes this also includes withholding of food and/or water. It's commonly believed that this only applies to extreme measures to keep someone alive, but it can apply to just about anything including medication.

I took the following legal wording from Wikipedia.

"If at any time I should have a terminal condition as defined in and established in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (10) of Code Section 31-32-2 of the Official code of Georgia Annotated, I direct that the application of life-sustaining procedures to my body be withheld or withdrawn and that I be permitted to die"

This is very similar to the one my father had. The reason I quoted this is because this seems pretty clear, but the reality is far different. First, even though it specifically states it, it does NOT have to be a terminal condition. It can be a condition in which the patient can live indefinitely with little or no medical treatment. Rather than being terminal, it can be a quality of life issue. The person does NOT even have to be unconscious.

Now here's an important distinction. When there is a Living Will, the doctors, family members, or Power of Attorney do NOT make a decision for the patient. The patient already made that decision at the time they signed the document. The only decision is to determine *IF* the conditions set forth in the document have been met. If the conditions have been met, then there is no choice in the matter. To do other than the document states, for any personal reason or belief, is to go against the person's own wishes.

If there is no Living Will, it is still similar. A person making life and death decisions for someone else should not do so based on their own personal desires or beliefs. They must make a decision FOR the other person, not for themself. In other words, they must decide how THE PATIENT would decide if they could make the decision themself.

People tend to think that life should be kept at almost any cost. But should it? Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath. I had always thought this oath said that doctors should always try to save a life and try to treat any condition....until we met with my father's doctor. He was in favor of pulling the plug. He quoted the oath he took "Above all, do no harm". He said that keeping Dad alive was doing harm. And he said that there is a time to just let nature take it's course.

Letting nature take it's course. I think that's far better wording than "passive euthanasia". Death is part of life. It's not pleasant, but it's part of life. There will come a time when medicine can keep just about anyone alive, but at what cost? Living and dieing are part of life and part of nature. At what point does it cross the line from ethical medical treatment, to just letting nature take it's course? At what point does it cross the line between ethical medical treatment and cruelty? Because keeping someone alive when they have no quality of life can be just that, cruelty.

"Above all, do no harm." Letting nature take it's course is humane. While forcing someone to live when they have no quality of life is not.

If you ever have to make that decision, if you ever have to answer the question, "Will this person that I love live, or will this person that I love die?", and the answer to that question WILL become reality, I can tell you from experience that it'll be the hardest damn thing you'll do in your entire life.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 18 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1253 seconds