Some people shouldn't be resuscitated and be allowed to die

Forums: Health
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm very upset at what is happening to the mother of my daughter-in-law in California. She is a 63 year old woman who was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) last year. Her symptom site was in her throat, which is unusual as most start in the lower limbs. Her condition progressed rather rapidly and she is in very poor condition, needing help with her personal hygiene functions and can only take liquid food through a tube. She is no longer able to talk and has difficulty breathing.

What has made me so angry is that last week, my daughter-in-law was visiting her mother in her apartment and noticed that her mother seemed to be losing consciousness and was turning blue. In a panic, she called 911 and the EMTs resuscitated her and rushed her to the hospital. She was diagnosed with pneumonia and treatment was started.

I'm appalled that they would try to save her from pneumonia when she has a deadly terminal disease and is suffering a lot. ALS is one of the hardest ways to die and pneumonia (the old terminally ill patient's friend) would have given her a gentle death instead of what she faces as the disease progresses.

What has medicine come to when reviving the patient at all costs is the norm? Why couldn't they let this poor woman die a peaceful death and end her suffering as well as her family's.

I know its hard to let a loved one go, but sometimes you have to think of the patient instead of yourself.

BBB

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,224 • Replies: 37

No top replies

I agree. When a beloved dog becomes old and infirmed we put it to sleep and say we couldn't bear to see them suffer. When a human becomes old and infirmed we go to extreme measures to keep them alive. I have a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order for my dad who is in a nursing home with physical ailments and Alzheimers. However, he will never recover from his illness and is destined to spend the rest of his days suffering. This breaks my heart. Personally, when I am no longer able to play tennis, create value and enjoy my life I want the end to come.

0 Replies

NickFun

Quote:

Personally, when I am no longer able to play tennis, create value and enjoy my life I want the end to come.

Unfortunately under current law that in most instances dying with dignity not our choice.

0 Replies

just to add a macabre little point here;
medicine is 'big business'; hospitals apply whatever technology is available to maintain their 'customer base'. There are drugs to be sold, and invoices to be issued!..............

[If a 'human life' were not the focus, would any good business person willingly eliminate a 'good customer'.]

Laws should be about improving the quality of people's lives, not criminalizing those who are willing to compassionately take on that duty.

0 Replies

Living Wills and Durable Power of Attorney can solve a lot of problems.

0 Replies

they won't undo 'bad' laws! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

BoGoWo
I can't agree with your assessment. Most Drs. when they recognize that a person is terminal would not shy away from relieving the pain by hastening death. The law however, makes it a very dangerous [to the Drs. professional life] to do so. The hope is that someday the practice of medicine will be returned to here it belongs. The medical profession.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

BoGoWo
I can't agree with your assessment. Most Drs. when they recognize that a person is terminal would not shy away from relieving the pain by hastening death. The law however, makes it a very dangerous [to the Drs. professional life] to do so. The hope is that someday the practice of medicine will be returned to here it belongs. The medical profession.

you missed my point entirely; i in no way was i implying that doctors profit from prolonged pain. i was referring to the 'medical establishment - corporate entity'.
doctors do, mind you, contribute by not speaking up as a group to affect the changing of harmful legislation (for an individual doctor to enter the frey alone, while being morally correct, would be medical suicide).

0 Replies

Re: Some people shouldn't be resuscitated and be allowed to

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

I'm very upset at what is happening to the mother of my daughter-in-law in California. She is a 63 year old woman who was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) last year. Her symptom site was in her throat, which is unusual as most start in the lower limbs. Her condition progressed rather rapidly and she is in very poor condition, needing help with her personal hygiene functions and can only take liquid food through a tube. She is no longer able to talk and has difficulty breathing.

What has made me so angry is that last week, my daughter-in-law was visiting her mother in her apartment and noticed that her mother seemed to be losing consciousness and was turning blue. In a panic, she called 911 and the EMTs resuscitated her and rushed her to the hospital. She was diagnosed with pneumonia and treatment was started.
I'm appalled that they would try to save her from pneumonia when she has a deadly terminal disease and is suffering a lot. ALS is one of the hardest ways to die and pneumonia (the old terminally ill patient's friend) would have given her a gentle death instead of what she faces as the disease progresses.

What has medicine come to when reviving the patient at all costs is the norm? Why couldn't they let this poor woman die a peaceful death and end her suffering as well as her family's.

I know its hard to let a loved one go, but sometimes you have to think of the patient instead of yourself.

BBB

The daughter of the patient called 911 and the EMTs responded . Was this the wish of the daughter or the patient, that she be transported to the ER for care? If no care for the patient was wanted, why was 911 called. When a person calls 911, there is a consequence to this action. In the case of a person with breathing/cardiac problems, the EMTs will hasten the patient's transport to the nearest ERwhere treatment will be administered for the treatment of the patient's presenting illness.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

I agree. When a beloved dog becomes old and infirmed we put it to sleep and say we couldn't bear to see them suffer. When a human becomes old and infirmed we go to extreme measures to keep them alive. I have a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order for my dad who is in a nursing home with physical ailments and Alzheimers. However, he will never recover from his illness and is destined to spend the rest of his days suffering. This breaks my heart. Personally, when I am no longer able to play tennis, create value and enjoy my life I want the end to come.

Interesting comparison that you've made between a human and a dog.
Things don't always run so smoothly, when time comes to terminate a dog's life. For example, when my dog was terminal, I was told that I had to make an appointment with the Vet for the termination of life procedure.
I was also told that my dog couldn't be put to sleep if the dog's Vet wasn't
on duty that day at the hospital. If a substitute Vet was to be involved, that Vet would have to perform an examination ($45) and moreover, that an appointment would have to be made, in advance, with the substitue vet.

So what happens when your dog is dying and the Vet isn't there and you haven't made an appointment and no subsitute Vet is avialable?

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

BoGoWo
I can't agree with your assessment. Most Drs. when they recognize that a person is terminal would not shy away from relieving the pain by hastening death. The law however, makes it a very dangerous [to the Drs. professional life] to do so. The hope is that someday the practice of medicine will be returned to here it belongs. The medical profession.

One consequence, frequently encountered with pain management in the terminal patient, is the acceleration of death, by the pharmaceuticals employed to relieve pain. I doubt that MDs use these meds to terminate a patient's life. They are used to reduce pain and to add comfort to the remaining days of the terminal patient.

0 Replies

Though this is not really a discussion about dogs, it would be easy to find another vet in another town or, if death is not imminent, wait a day or two for your vet to become available. However with humans we must hold out until medical science has exhausted all possibilities and the suffering of the patient is not accounted for at all.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

NickFun

Quote:
Personally, when I am no longer able to play tennis, create value and enjoy my life I want the end to come.

Unfortunately under current law that in most instances dying with dignity not our choice.

Quote:

"Dying with dignity":

In all of the hospitals, with which I've had professional experience, I can truly say, that the death of a patient is handled with compassion and dignity for the human body and soul. That's one reason, why we have ethics committes in many hospitals.

0 Replies

the difficulty with the prospect of turning off a human being, when the time comes, is defining the 'time'.
we have all been witness to some relative, friend, or even stranger, for whom life is obviously over, and only the pain remains, pushing the remnants of their 'cling to life' system (that has served them so well, for whatever time they have had) into submission.
Before that point they were battling a disease, injury, or system fault that threatened their existence. At some point that battle has been lost, and any further effort is an affront to dignity.
The point i am making is that beyond the point of no return, the battle to survive reverts to torture, and intercession is indicated.
Our efforts should be concentrated on defining the point, not arguing foolishly over the immutable biblical morality of giving a human being peace.

0 Replies

This may be true Miller but as we all know, growing old and getting sick still suck no matter how much compassion is given.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

Living Wills and Durable Power of Attorney can solve a lot of problems.

That's very true!

0 Replies

BBB,

Bulbar onset ALS. My dad died in 2002, from the same thing.

I weep.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

This may be true Miller but as we all know, growing old and getting sick still suck no matter how much compassion is given.

That is not true, NickFun. Where intact loving families exist, growing old is not an illness to be avoided. However, in those cases, where families deposit their elderly into nursing homes, etc, strictly because they can't be bothered to care for the aged, growing old can be a real hardship.

As far as your word "suck", to me, it means nothing within either a medical or a scientifc context relative to the care of the elderly.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Though this is not really a discussion about dogs, it would be easy to find another vet in another town or, if death is not imminent, wait a day or two for your vet to become available. However with humans we must hold out until medical science has exhausted all possibilities and the suffering of the patient is not accounted for at all.

[/b]

Not according to the law. If proper legal directives are in writing, there should be no conflicts of interest, once a patient has entered a hospital.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

just to add a macabre little point here;
medicine is 'big business'; hospitals apply whatever technology is available to maintain their 'customer base'. There are drugs to be sold, and invoices to be issued!..............

[If a 'human life' were not the focus, would any good business person willingly eliminate a 'good customer'.]

Laws should be about improving the quality of people's lives, not criminalizing those who are willing to compassionately take on that duty.

Hospitals apply whatever technology is available to save lives.

0 Replies

Some people shouldn't be resuscitated and be allowed to die

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know