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.
Options

'Nearly 3,000 euthanasia cases in UK last year'

BillieTheBotBillieTheBot Posts: 8,721 Bot
in Politics & Debate
Doctors in the UK were responsible for the deaths, through euthanasia, of nearly 3,000 people last year, it was revealed yesterday in the first authoritative study of the decisions they take when faced with terminally-ill patients. More than 170,000 patients, almost a third of all deaths, had treatment withdrawn or withheld which would have hastened their demise.
The figures, extrapolated from the study, show rates of euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide which are significantly lower than anywhere else in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, where similar studies have been done. The numbers immediately provoked controversy.
http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,7890,1688609,00.html

This contrasts with a story on the BBC, which state that euthanasia is 'extremely rare in the UK'.

Well the first article confirms what I've been saying all along- and what I have experienced in my family. Doctors will hasten the death of a terminally ill patient by removing treatment- or in many other cases including my grandmother- by administering a large dose of morphine when the end is near.

I completely and unreservedly agree with such action. So long as doctors are allowed to continue to do it...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How does it 'contrast' with the BBC's story? It states the exact same figures: 0.49% of anything is rare.

    Rather than having all this secrecy surrounding it, wouldn't it be better for it to be legal? Or would it?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is difficult, and of course you are asking doctors to do something which go against all their training.

    But what is the difference between 'removing treatment' (starving them to death) or giving them a large dose of morphine?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Panthro wrote:
    How does it 'contrast' with the BBC's story? It states the exact same figures: 0.49% of anything is rare.
    I guess it's the headline that's misleading. I'm sure 'pro-lifers' would argue that 3,000 cases of euthanasia are anything but rare ;)
    Rather than having all this secrecy surrounding it, wouldn't it be better for it to be legal? Or would it?
    It would definitely be much better if it was all legalised. I don't know if we would see that happen within our lifetimes though. Not with much of the Lords including the bishops lobbying furiously against it (why oh why do members of the clergy get seats in the Lords by default?).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    It is difficult, and of course you are asking doctors to do something which go against all their training.

    But what is the difference between 'removing treatment' (starving them to death) or giving them a large dose of morphine?
    I guess some people would see the former as letting nature take its course but the latter as taking a pro-active part in the patient's death.

    Silly, I know. It is in fact far more humane to administer a morphine o.d.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    (why oh why do members of the clergy get seats in the Lords by default?).

    I'd rather have them than the crap Tony has filled the Lords with.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    It is in fact far more humane to administer a morphine o.d.

    Harold Shipman certainly thought so.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Then again he wasn't dealing with terminally ill patients with about 72 hours to live.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nope, which is kind of my point.

    Unless you put extreme controls in place then it would be abused, guaranteed. It also diverts attention from other options. Death is cheap, investment in research and development is expensive. Why look at a cure when you can just inject morphine?

    I have a fundamental issue too with the sanctity of human life argument and the contradictions between abortion, execution and euthanasia...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There have to be strict controls, for sure.

    All I'm saying (and I hope as many people as possible agree) is that there is nothing wrong with doctors withdrawing treatment or providing a morphine overdose to someone who is 100% certain to die within a few hours/couple of days.

    As far as I'm aware that's been going on in hospitals all across Europe (and elsewhere I'd imagine) for decades. I doubt you can even call that euthanasia.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Remember, this is not doctors, sneaking into a patients room in the dead of night with a syringe up their sleeve. A doc will typically prescribe, the top-end limit of morphine, and this will be infused constantly over 24 hours and then renewed and so on. This basically puts them into a medically-induced comma, a state which the body cannot cope indefinately and the patient dies.

    Withdrawing treatment has many facets, be it a total withdrawl of all nutrition and hydration or simply witholding antibiotics. Sometimes it is better to let the patient slip away.

    Medical experts say that if what happened to Ariel Sharon, had happended to any other Israeli or to any other person, he would be kept comfortable and be allowed to die. Rather than surgery, tracheostomy etc. What is his quality of life going to be? Would you want him to suffer?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you really think that withholding nutrition and hydration means that the patient doesn't suffer?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To a lesser extent and malnutrition or dehydration isn't probably going to kill them. What is the point in putting an NG or PEG tube in to parenterally feed someone that is in the end stage of life? Prolonging their suffering even by a day could be considered inhumane. We need better palliative care for patients.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't disagree with the need for better palliative care, nor with the sentiment about prolonging life. I just don't believe in deliberately ending it either.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I see nothing wrong with Euthanasia.

    But it isn't about morality. It is about that there may have been 3,000 cases. This is shocking... that we didin't know! Wow... seems the doctors are practacing well, despite laws.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What if the patient, consistently states that they want to die, like Diane Pretty?

    I am like you, I am wary of abuses of a euthanasia system, but with appropriate controls I think it may work.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Legalised euthanasia even with the strict legal controls would not be a good thing. I hate the idea of a society where say elderly relatives might think they're a burden on their families and ask for voluntary euthanasia out of some duty to their family – already people who feel they’re burdens on their families sometimes commit suicide. And over vulnerable groups doctors have huge power, I know that abuse of this power is extremely rare but if legalised I think people could be pressured into euthanasia through relatives or doctors. And the cultural effect on society, attitudes towards palliative care would change if euthanasia was an option and the whole outlook could change. It’s not particularly plausible but it’s existence can’t be ruled out, that is the slippery slope of voluntary euthanasia leading to the kind of involuntary euthanasia witnessed in Nazi Germany. I guess there could be mistakes too, what if someone is diagnosed with a fatal painful disease and asks for voluntary euthanasia but it then turns out the diagnosis was wrong? Unlikely and not a typical situation where euthanasia would be considered but I don’t think it could be ruled out for 100%.

    Turning a life support machine off or indirectly helping someone die through legally giving pain-relieving treatment hastening someone’s death is a different thing to directly and deliberately ending someone’s life. The effect might be the same but the latter has a very different motive and would have a damaging effect on society imo.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've previously stated that if someone has so much desire then they will find a way - suicide being the obvious.

    I have so many concerns about it, the abuse, the contradictions but also why should doctors be expected to assist death so deliberately? Then there's the research.funding aspect. Why should the NHS invest in long term care when it is cheaper to administer morphine etc? It's an ethical minefield and I really don't think that it is necessary...
Sign In or Register to comment.