12
   

Euthanasia: Germany's highest court made a landmark ruling

 
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2010 11:28 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
without the terrorism.


give them time, i'm guessing if some miracle keeps Obama in the White House in 2012, that may change
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jun, 2010 12:09 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

This reminds me of how backward the U.S. is, thanks mostly but not all, of the radical religious right, which are similar to the Taliban's religious control of their people without the terrorism.

BBB
The OP describes charges of manslaughter related to the withdrawal of care from a person in a vegetative state. No viewpoint on that is either backward or forward since it's uncharted territory for all of us. Erasing half the ideological backdrop won't make the problem disappear. Coming to terms with our present situation in regard to technology and death will. Some things take time, which is in fact the crux of the matter.

It took time for the relative in this case to accept the death of a loved one.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 07:27 pm
In Oz, we spend more than half the health budget caring for people in the last year of their life. This statistic involves emergency treatment for accident victims and should not be though of as old patients only. However it is widely regarded that the majority of health is spent on the aged. This means a 70 yr old can have 7 more years of life, but a 7 yr old can be denied 70 yrs of life because of the monet spent on aid rather than research.

All this because people live in denial of death and the further away they can place it the better, even if at the expense of others.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 10:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Mame wrote:

I agree. If a person is of sound mind and has made a decision, it should be honored. Why have DNR bracelets then? You should not be forced to live a life you don't value.

An elderly woman I knew who had a DNR bracelet had an incident and her heart stopped in the hospital but the staff at

the hospital ignored it and resuscitated her.

She was really pissed!
Did she sue ?


We're not that litigious up here, David. But she did totter to the hospital with her Smith & Wesson and shot the nurses who revived her.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 10:21 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Mame wrote:

I agree. If a person is of sound mind and has made a decision, it should be honored. Why have DNR bracelets then? You should not be forced to live a life you don't value.

An elderly woman I knew who had a DNR bracelet had an incident and her heart stopped in the hospital but the staff at

the hospital ignored it and resuscitated her.

She was really pissed!
Did she sue ?
Her lawyer would have to explain why she was in the hospital, accepting care, in the first place. The hospital could easily explain why, when in doubt, they would resuscitate. If a mistake was made... is it not better to reivive a person who didn't want that... than to fail to revive someone who did want to wake up again, no matter in what condition? The first is unfortunate, as a person ideally,should die with dignity. The second is a big fat settlement.

No one can insure that death will come with dignity. It's the nature of the thing. And doctor's don't have crystal balls. A person may be suicidal one day and not the next.


A decision for DNR is not taken lightly and should be respected. The hospital is off the hook if there is a DNR bracelet or tattoo.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Jun, 2010 10:48 pm
@Ionus,
That above mentioned decision has only little to do with how many monry is spent for old or any other people.

It's about the personal right to decide what is done with someone's own life under certain circumstances. And about how their decision has to be respected and observed.
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 04:11 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

And doctor's don't have crystal balls.


The way mine walks, I think he may.

This is a wonderful decision. Governments claim far too much power over individuals, the right not to be forced to continue living should be a given. (I do admit the need for some boundaries, such as adulthood.)
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Jun, 2010 06:36 pm
@Eorl,
Eorl wrote:

Arjuna wrote:

And doctor's don't have crystal balls.


The way mine walks, I think he may.

This is a wonderful decision. Governments claim far too much power over individuals, the right not to be forced to continue living should be a given. (I do admit the need for some boundaries, such as adulthood.)
I also agree with the underlying principles.

For what it's worth: if you have a living will, speak to your relatives before you go into a hospital. Make sure they understand what you want.

If the patient is your relative: they can't put in a feeding tube unless you sign a consent form. Don't sign it without an in-depth discussion with the doctor about the prognosis.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Jun, 2010 06:48 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
That above mentioned decision has only little to do with how many monry is spent for old or any other people.
Euthanasia is an important part of aged care. How much does it cost to keep a comatose 70 yr old alive when their wishes were to be assisted to die if they were ever in that position ? How much is spent on cancer victims making them very sick in the last months of their lives when they could be having a beach holiday for a fraction of the price ? All because we are afraid of death and have removed it from our society. Once we would have a wake with the dead body on the kitchen table. Now they are given to total strangers to save us the unpleasantnes of dealing with death.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 07:43:33