Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Terri Schiavo Dies

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Were any of those ladies suffering from terminal illness, dying, or in a permenent vegetative state?

    No. They weren't. As you know full well.
    Many were confused old ladies, a point mentioned by many relatives at the trial.
    And some may indeed have been suffering from long term illnesses.
    So do stop the Shipman name dropping if you will. At the end of the day you really don't want to go down that route, given the things some members of the clergy have done...
    The uncomfortable point I'm making is that you are advocating a doctor should be allowed to adminster a drug overdose to an elderly person in order to curtail their life.
    A doctor by his/her very profession is called upon to save life not be set up as a killer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest unless your an absolute pacifist you can't really speak about the right to life and God's will and all that.

    Either killing is wrong in all circumstances or its not. You can't say God is against the killing of someone who to all extents was brain dead, but he's quite happy with killing during wartime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    The uncomfortable point I'm making is that you are advocating a doctor should be allowed to adminster a drug overdose to an elderly person in order to curtail their life.
    A doctor by his/her very profession is called upon to save life not be set up as a killer.

    A doctor is there to stop suffering, it aliviate pain, not to prelong life indefinately.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To a dying person. Not to a sick person.

    And in cases where the person has stated they wish to be allowed to die with dignity, to stop suffering or where the person is in an irreversable vegetative state.

    It's up to the individual to decide how to end their lives. Doctors should be allowed to ensure the person's wishes are carried out.

    If some people choose to believe there is some kind of deity who "own" their lives, good for them. Just do not attempt to impose such beliefs on others.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    A doctor is there to stop suffering, it aliviate pain, not to prelong life indefinately.
    "indefinitely"? Doctors are there to alleviate pain and prolong life. Full Stop. As long as they're not going to cross over that moral line and act like some Nazi death-camp Dr Mengele, I'm happy and so is my gran!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    "indefinitely"? Doctors are there to alleviate pain and prolong life. Full Stop. As long as they're not going to cross over that moral line and act like some Nazi death-camp Dr Mengele, I'm happy and so is my gran!

    So we should keep all coma victims alive constantly?

    First you say you dont want doctors doing God's work, now you want them to prelong life for as long as possible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    So we should keep all coma victims alive constantly?

    First you say you dont want doctors doing God's work, now you want them to prelong life for as long as possible.
    Doctors should work in accordanace with their Hippocratic Oath and help the sick but "not play God" with people's lives. They should prolong life as long as possible but take no positive action to end that life in ways such as overdoing a person with drugs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    Doctors should work in accordanace with their Hippocratic Oath and help the sick but "not play God" with people's lives. They should prolong life as long as possible but take no positive action to end that life in ways such as overdoing a person with drugs.

    So you are saying that coma victims should be kept alive indefinately?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Why not?

    I was just wondering what the point would be in keeping something alive where the brain was obviously completely dead. Which seems to be what Rich Kid is advocating.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    hey should prolong life as long as possible but take no positive action to end that life in ways such as overdoing a person with drugs.

    which in the context of the TS case they did not take positive action - in that they did not administer anything.

    Rich Kid - ever heard of iatrogenic death? if not try this link

    while the hipocratic oath underpins codes of conduct have you read this? (click on the duties of a doctor link)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    shipmans victims were in full health when he killed them. It has nothing in common with this case. We`re not debating whether people in full health should be killed by evil twisted doctors.
    The point I'm making is that by asking Doctors to adminster an overdose of drugs with the sole purpose of killing that person is tantamount to making them into Shipmans - it runs very much against what a doctor should be doing, ie preserving life, not killing!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    The point I'm making is that by asking Doctors to adminster an overdose of drugs with the sole purpose of killing that person is tantamount to making them into Shipmans - it runs very much against what a doctor should be doing, ie preserving life, not killing!

    No, we are talking about alviating suffering, which is different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    I was just wondering what the point would be in keeping something alive where the brain was obviously completely dead. Which seems to be what Rich Kid is advocating.
    btw Terri schiavo wasnt brain dead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    The point I'm making is that by asking Doctors to adminster an overdose of drugs with the sole purpose of killing that person is tantamount to making them into Shipmans - it runs very much against what a doctor should be doing, ie preserving life, not killing!
    The people receiving the overdose would not have any "living" left to do- a few days at most, in agonising pain.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    btw Terri schiavo wasnt brain dead.

    Yep, I know, its just that Rich Kid seemed to be advocating that doctors prolong life whatever the case, so I was asking whether he thought that someone who is completely brain dead should be kept alive. But he didnt answer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    thats because Rich Kid is an arse.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    thats because Rich Kid is an arse.

    Thats sort of the thoughts I was having.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The people receiving the overdose would not have any "living" left to do- a few days at most, in agonising pain.
    How do you know? Or are you God? Thats a very generalised statement which cannot be substantiated.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Yep, I know, its just that Rich Kid seemed to be advocating that doctors prolong life whatever the case, so I was asking whether he thought that someone who is completely brain dead should be kept alive. But he didnt answer.
    To answer your question, apologies for not doing so earlier, NO.
    There is a difference between a doctor trying to preserve life for as long as possible and eventually allowing a person to die - but that does not mean medical intervention to ensure that person dies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The doctors know, naturally.

    Or are you suggesting we cannot tell whether a person is dying?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    thats because Rich Kid is an arse.
    Thank you kind person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The doctors know, naturally.

    Or are you suggesting we cannot tell whether a person is dying?
    I personally know of two people who were told by their doctors to go home and die, there was nothing more that they could do for them.

    Three, and two years later, respectively both are still alive - I suppose you would have had them "over-dosed"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    To answer your question, apologies for not doing so earlier, NO.
    There is a difference between a doctor trying to preserve life for as long as possible and eventually allowing a person to die - but that does not mean medical intervention to ensure that person dies.

    But turning off a coma machine would be medical intervention to ensure the person dies, so I dont understand your view.

    And how is what happened in this case not "trying to preserve life for as long as possible and eventually allowing a person to die"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If a person is only breathing and staying alive because of a ventaliator and there is no brain activity then there is no reason why the machine cannot be turned off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    So you'd ask someone to commit an act of murder, pity Dr Shipman isn't still around.
    God gives life, God takes away life, it is not for man to decide when a human life is finished, and its immensely arrogant to do so. Through suffering we can gain redemption as Jesus did on the Cross for us.


    hmmm again using your line of argument, god meant for her to die when she had to be fed by others....

    either option was a tough choice really she expressed wish that she not be artificially kept alive if she became a vegetable, and i feel for her parents its obvious they had problems letting go, but what parent could deal with seeing their kids die before them
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    If a person is only breathing and staying alive because of a ventaliator and there is no brain activity then there is no reason why the machine cannot be turned off.

    But all the doctors in this case agreed there was no real brain function in this case, just the fact she breathes by herself doesnt really affect the issue. If she could breathe and feed then thats totally different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What about the cases of the two (real) people I mentioned, I've noticed you've chosen to ignore them!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rich Kid wrote:
    What about the cases of the two (real) people I mentioned, I've noticed you've chosen to ignore them!

    To be frank I dont know, first of all there is the trust issue, we normally only go on respected news sources here, but even if we take it as fact things happen, medical experts dont know all. Freak things do happen. That doesnt mean we should prelong the suffering of everyone.
Sign In or Register to comment.