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 ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And some may indeed have been suffering from long term illnesses.
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.
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.
A doctor is there to stop suffering, it aliviate pain, not to prelong life indefinately.
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.
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.
So you are saying that coma victims should be kept alive indefinately?
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.
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)
No, we are talking about alviating suffering, which is different.
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.
Thats sort of the thoughts I was having.
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.
Or are you suggesting we cannot tell whether a person is dying?
Three, and two years later, respectively both are still alive - I suppose you would have had them "over-dosed"?
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"?
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
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.
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.