Medical Ethics

[atiguhya padma]

In the UK at the moment, the High Court has ruled that a baby who is suffering from extreme brain-damage, should be allowed to die, if she stops breathing.

Both her parents have been fighting to overturn this decision.

The medical experts involved have made this claim:"[she has] no feelings other than continuing pain". The court had been told by these experts that the baby's life was "intolerable".

The high court judge stated: "I am quite clear that it would not be in Charlotte's best interests to die in the course of futile aggressive treatment".

He said that all treatment, apart from intubation and ventilation, should be given should she stop breathing, and this would be in her best interests.

What I would like to know is, what is more important: that we preserve our attitude to the sanctity of life, despite such suffering? or whether we should find an individual's intolerable suffering paramount, and act in a more merciful way towards them?

I am not so happy posting this sensitive subject in a general chat section, but, although it has some bearing on religious belief, it doesn't really belong in religious texts either.

[atiguhya padma]

Maybe we should have an ethics or philosophy section on this forum?

[amuse]

mm. that's a good thought. i mean, we have a games sub-forum after all (hint, hint Scher ;))

it's interesting how if one's cat or dog is in extreme, unimaginable pain we put them down "for their own good" but don't do so in the cases of humans. i've always thought that very odd.


whether we should find an individual's intolerable suffering paramount, and act in a more merciful way towards them?
i'd go with this option.

[Snukes]

It could be said that there is a difference between prolonging life and preventing death. It could be said there's a difference between prolonging death, allowing death, or causing death.

But lines can be very fine. It is a difficult question, but certainly one worth answering for yourself (and putting in writing!) as soon as you are able.

[Logos]

It's a timely conundrum atiguhya padma, reminds me of the case of Terri Schiavo. (http://www.terrisfight.org/)

Looks like a Philosophy section will be added:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3808&page=1&pp=15



I am not so happy posting this sensitive subject in a general chat section, but, although it has some bearing on religious belief, it doesn't really belong in religious texts either.

[mono]

Hopefully I do not wander too close to the subject of politics, but, AP, this exists as a constant debate in the U.S. state I live in, Oregon; and, as a potential future medical professional, I too often engage in debates regarding the law that only exists in Oregon, refused by the other 49 states, the 'Death With Dignity Act,' also known as 'physician assisted suicide.'
This law would not pertain to babies, in specific, but only applies to specific circumstances, under strict law, concerning a person's age, health condition, mental status, and chances of further living.
I apologize to the moderators in advance if my post gets too political, so I will refrain from continued depth of this subject, but provide a helpful link for those interested in the subject:
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/

[baddad]

IMHO......Not enough data is given in A.P.'s original post for an informed decision to be made either way concerning the young child's situation. This is, of course, understandable, as it is the perceived ethics of the situation that is of interest here, and not the specific case.....

Personally....... I would prefer, if given the opportunity to decide my own fate, not to linger in this life as a medical curiosity, or a burden to those in my life who may be emotionally concerned with my continued existence. Rather than an emotional and financial drain on those I care about I would prefer to be remembered as one who chose to die (the inevitable) rather than linger for an unknown length of time at death's door only to perish at some final point in time anyway. Of course, I will go kicking and screaming and committing brutally violent acts against the Grim Reaper, probably bruising him badly, but go I will, and this is preferable to subjecting loved one's to a hopeless faith in some distant and medically mysterious future possible recovery.

While I weep for those left behind, any parent even more so, I would also rejoice in a release from an existence consisting of continued pain and little else. Consider this my living request........most of us will never get the opportunity to decide the exact timing of our fate.....

Best wishes, respect, condolences, and tender relief from heart ache and pain such a situation as that under discussion here may have caused anyone visiting this forum.

[atiguhya padma]

My brother once lived next door to an old man who had fought at the Somme and at Paschendaele. He told of how he was compelled to kill a friend as an act of compassion. His friend, who was so badly injured he couldn't move, was slowly drowning in a bomb crater in an area of the battlefield under intense fire. He shot him in the back of the head.

Today, a similar act of compassion in most countries would entail a prison sentence. Last year, a man who wanted to assist his wife, under her consent, to die, was prevented from doing so by the High Court in the UK.

The example of my brother's neighbour and my first post are different inasmuch as one is about euthanasia, the other is about letting a life die naturally. But both are concerned with pain and its effect upon the quality of life. I personally feel that we must improve the way we deal with these situations. We must have more regard for those victims that are suffering in this way. In cases where people can make choices about euthanasia, but cannot act upon those choices, we should facilitate their choice. An individual's body, an individual's life, is not owned by the State. If we are not free to choose what to do with our lives and our bodies, then we are not free.

The greatest horror I can imagine, is having someone else, or some group, control my body, make decisions about the continuation of my life. I cannot imagine how intolerable it must be to exist beyond your desire to live.

[baddad]

.....The example of my brother's neighbour and my first post are different inasmuch as one is about euthanasia, the other is about letting a life die naturally. But both are concerned with pain and its effect upon the quality of life. I personally feel that we must improve the way we deal with these situations. We must have more regard for those victims that are suffering in this way. In cases where people can make choices about euthanasia, but cannot act upon those choices, we should facilitate their choice. An individual's body, an individual's life, is not owned by the State. If we are not free to choose what to do with our lives and our bodies, then we are not free.

The greatest horror I can imagine, is having someone else, or some group, control my body, make decisions about the continuation of my life. I cannot imagine how intolerable it must be to exist beyond your desire to live.

...amen brother....

[Sancho]

I may be a cynic, but at my local hospital if a rich man checks in with a terminal disease, medical science can keep him alive for a long time. Well, at least long enough to transfer most of his assets. On the other hand, if a poor man checks in with a similar condition… he just dies.

Ya know, I was happiest when I was poorest.

[Bandini]

"I am not so happy posting this sensitive subject in a general chat section"

If you come to a post marked 'medical ethics' , you've got to be prepared to be confronted with difficult issues - right kids? As Big Vern says - "Yer play with feathers, expect to get yer bum tickled'.

[subterranean]

Well if it happens that something happened to me, which make my condition similiar like a "zombie", I wouldn't like it if people make decision about my life. But sometimes I have this thought, if my condition gives so much hard times and sadness to the people I love (esp my mother), I'd give up my life. I don't think it's fair that other people loosing their own lives, just because they need to take care of unrepairable person..a living corpse. But that has to come from my own decision and of course I'd let people know about it when I still got the chance...

[Bandini]

Iv'e asked for a large injection of Diamorphine when I become a burden. Perhaps a few weeks of lower doses to start with - for one last set of experience!

[subterranean]

That sounds sweet

[Snukes]

It is not expensive (sometimes free) in the US to have a Living Will or Medical Power of Attorney set up. Either of these options allows you to state your wishes in the event of being put on life support. The first provides your wishes for every possible scenario (in general terms, of course), the second allows you to give the power of decision to someone you trust. These documents also address things such as acceptable forms of treatment (ALL medical treatment is always optional), use of blood, etc.

I don't know if similar documents are available in other countries, but in places where they are available, it is only the dying person's fault if they didn't have one filled out ahead of time and their wishes are not fulfilled. It's a sad case of being unable to know for sure what the dying (or barely living) person would have wanted.

Such a document addresses only life and death itself, not dispersion of assets or other things, normally addressed in a Final Will and Testamony. Anyone over the age of 18 can have one, children under 18 can have one with cosignatures of parents.

Of course, the fate of children is always a hot topic, especially ones not old enough to understand what's happening. But for the rest of us, there is little excuse to allow this to turn into a small disaster at the end of our lives. (And unfortunately, a post stating your wishes found at the Lit Forum two days after you become a vegetable probably doesn't carry a lot of legal oomph...)

<---Big advocate of Living Wills and POAs