Should governments have the right...

[Betheny]

To dictate who lives and who dies?

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3570951

I'm of two minds about this. One, it really sucks to waste resources on someone that is terminally ill and is only going to suffer. But on the other hand, miracles do happen, and who is to say that someone who is desperately ill cannot be cured in the future?

What do you think?

[Back]

Hell no. And I sure as hell don’t want them in my bedroom either.

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Backlash
Hell no. And I sure as hell don’t want them in my bedroom either.

Agreed.

I voted for the third option, but I have very specific ideals for how such a thing would have to be handled, and it would be very, very rare.

[Tsa`ah]

I think I would litigate the fuck out of that hospital.

It's a hospital, not a hospice. They should have no say in the matter. The parents are fighting to keep the child alive in hopes that she'll pull through. That should be all the hospital needs.

[Nieninque]

I know a little girl who was born at 24 weeks.
She has a lot of health problems but she is a happy little girl.
She would have been borderline at her birth as to whether they keep her alive, but wtf. You dont keep them alive for 11 months and then just say, ah what the fuck, lets just give up.

[Gene Gene Pork and Bean]

The government does NOT have the right to do anything. It has the power to do things. these powers are voted on by the people who have the right to vote

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Gene Gene Pork and Bean
The government does NOT have the right to do anything. It has the power to do things. these powers are voted on by the people who have the right to vote

No they are not.
The powers are voted on by the people who are voted in by the people who have the right to vote.
There is a difference

[Gene Gene Pork and Bean]

yes sorry..a mistake..i had full intention of that being part of it..that still does not change the fact that government has NO rights. and the second you think your gonernment has right all is lost..and then the key wording in the original post is correct...dictate

[Brattt8525]

This is a no brainer, for me at least. No one other then blood related will ever decide as to whether I need to be put out of my own misery. The goverment takes enough from me, they won't take my last breath.

[HarmNone]

The right to die should lie, in my opinion, with the individual doing the dying. In the case of an infant, unable to make such a decision, it should lie with the parents.

That said, there are some situations (as Maimara said) that probably require special consideration. I would not, however, place such consideration in the hands of the government. Better it be placed with a trained group of doctors and nurses, who are best able to understand all the ramifications of treatment vs no treatment.

The government has no place in such a decision AT ALL! Bureaucrats don't belong in life or death decision making at this level. I voted for option three, only because it was the closest option to what I believe to be humane.

HarmNone

[Nieninque]

Just to muddy the waters then,

What about in the cases of people like the jehovas witnesses who dont allow blood transfusions and stuff and who wont consent to the treatment necessary to treat their child?

Who has the right/power then?

[Betheny]

I'm not sure I like the idea of doctors being able to determine such a thing, either; with the way HMO's and insurance companies have such a choke hold on them. That would be even worse than the government having the power -- because they don't really have anyone monitoring them or determining what's morally right, they would just go with whatever saves them money, regardless of the level of humaneness involved.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Nieninque
Just to muddy the waters then,

What about in the cases of people like the jehovas witnesses who dont allow blood transfusions and stuff and who wont consent to the treatment necessary to treat their child?

Who has the right/power then? I can say that I wouldn't want a blood transfusion either, regardless of the situation. There are substitutes and I would be pissed if the government or courts forced me to have one.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Nieninque
Just to muddy the waters then,

What about in the cases of people like the jehovas witnesses who dont allow blood transfusions and stuff and who wont consent to the treatment necessary to treat their child?

Who has the right/power then? I can say that I wouldn't want a blood transfusion either, regardless of the situation. There are substitutes and I would be pissed if the government or courts forced me to have one.

Ok maybe that was a bad example, but if parents or partners are refusing to consent to treatment for some reason, do they get the final say?

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Maimara
I'm not sure I like the idea of doctors being able to determine such a thing, either; with the way HMO's and insurance companies have such a choke hold on them. That would be even worse than the government having the power -- because they don't really have anyone monitoring them or determining what's morally right, they would just go with whatever saves them money, regardless of the level of humaneness involved.

Which is why I suggested a TEAM of doctors AND nurses. Nurses are patient advocates and fully capable, in most cases, of standing up to the doctors when they get just a bit too.....doctory. ;)

HarmNone

[Betheny]

It's a personal decision. One I would make based on the quality of life after whatever procedure was needed...

[HarmNone]

In most cases, the decision lies with the family members or, if the patient is able to make a decision, with the patient. That includes blood transfusions.

HarmNone

[HarmNone]

For those of you who have strong feelings regarding end-of-life decisions, you should have an Advanced Directive (or Living Will) that spells out what you do and do not want done, should you become unable to make decisions for yourself. This should be discussed, at length, with your family members to make sure that everyone understands your decision. Family members CAN (and often do) step in at the last minute and override a patient's decisions. It's a very sad thing to see. :(

HarmNone

[Betheny]

I don't think they can, if you have your living will on file with your doctor (assuming that it's accessible, and not a split-second decision).

My mother has one, and I would not override it. But hers is pretty general, and basically says do everything possible, unless her quality of life is expected to be crappy, then DNR.

[HarmNone]

Unfortunately, the family CAN override the living will. It should NOT be thus, but it is. I've seen it myself, many times.

HarmNone, who deals with this kind of thing daily

[Betheny]

For some reason, I thought you were in real estate. :wtf:

[HarmNone]

Heh. Nope. Not real estate. I'm the director of a hospice care organization. ;)

HarmNone

[Killer Kitten]

I remember when I was much younger I believed that Hell would be living paralyzed and dependent upon machines. I'd tell anybody who would listen how I wanted to be allowed to die if I was in such a state.
Then I developed a disease that involved a months long hospital stay, serious time on a respirator and total paralysis. All through the ordeal I was certain that the condition was permanent and I was going to spend the rest of my life unable to move a muscle or breathe on my own.
I wanted to live. Regardless of present torment or future prospects, life was sweet.
I don't think anybody has the right to arbitrarily make such a decision for another person. Especially some elected/appointed/probably easily corrupted disinterested government official.

Kimm/Ex-Tilone

[MrFeature]

All she needs to do is have another kid and lay off the booze and drugs and it wont be 3 months premature.

[Nieninque]

Yeah coz life is that simple :rolleyes:

[Nakiro]

Originally posted by Backlash
Hell no. And I sure as hell don’t want them in my bedroom either.

According to some theory on government dating back to Ancient Greek philosophy, the ability for the government to take the lives of its citizens is the primary means of controling crime and civility in the world.

But in the case of government funded medical treatment, the government should have a set limit on how much it is willing to spend.

Beyond that point, people should be responsbile for their own health care, be it through their insurance, their family, or personal assets.

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by Nakiro]

[Back]

Or the simple act of washing hands.

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by MrFeature
All she needs to do is have another kid and lay off the booze and drugs and it wont be 3 months premature.

What did you read in that article that led you to the conclusion that drug and alcohol abuse had anything to do with the condition of this child?

Also, even if it was a crack baby, how is this the fault of the child and why should every effort not be made? Is our society really that twisted as to believe that an imperfect child is disposable?

I hope not.

Kimm/Ex-Tilone

As I see it, the person could be in the worst possible condition ever, and as long as the hospital is keeping them ALIVE, from my clouded moral perspective, that is something good, if the government makes death plausible, even in the cases of what some? may deem as a dire need for a human being to be taken off of life support, I will disagree with it. Human beings do not need to be put down like dogs. Also, what Tsa said.

[Jazuela]

I did a quick google and found a few articles about this case. It seems that what Maimara linked us to is a very -very- brief synopsis of the situation.

The infant was born premature, but that isn't the only problem. She has a severe chronic lung disease, inoperable and terminal. She has a heart condition, scar tissue on her lungs from five previous ventillation episodes, her kidneys are shutting down, and she does not respond to stimulus. Her brain is not growing (brains grow), and every time they ventillate her it causes more severe scarring, which in turn causes more difficulty breathing, which causes more suffering and the need for more oxygen. The attending physicians say she is already receiving the most oxygen they are able to give her. She will never cease to need oxygen being fed into her lungs - ventillating is a more extreme procedure to get oxygen down, but she is on oxygen now through less invasive means (probably a nose-clamp, the articles I read didn't specify).

The doctors at the hospital are absolutely certain - without any possible doubt - that this infant will not live through her infancy and will remain in the hospital for the rest of her very short life.

They say that every time she is ventillated it causes her severe trauma, stress, pain, and suffering. The parents want to keep her alive for as long as possible, even though they know she suffers horribly with every attempt to do so.

The entire team of doctors, and other pediatricians who have reviewed the case and the baby, have all agreed that prolonging her life with ventillation is an intolerable thing to impose on this infant.

But because the parents insist that they ventillate whenever needed, their hands are tied. This is why the government is involved.

In THIS CASE - I feel that the parents do NOT have the baby's best interests in mind, though perhaps they believe they do. I believe they are wrong, and hopefully the next time the baby stops breathing, she will die peacefully and not through the torture of ventillation on her unfinished and utterly destroyed lungs.