← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 19478 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2005-08-07
2005-08-07 17:12 | User Profile
Terminally Ill Can Be Starved to Death, UK Court Rules By Nicola Brent CNSNews.com Correspondent August 02, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - An appeal court has denied a terminally ill British man the assurance that his wish not to be starved to death once he becomes incapacitated will be respected to the end.
Former mailman Leslie Burke, 45, has a progressively degenerative disease that although leaving him fully conscious, will eventually rob him of the ability to swallow and communicate.
He petitioned the High Court last year to ensure that he would not be denied food and water once he was no longer able to articulate his wishes.
Burke won that right when judge James Munby ruled that if a patient was mentally competent -- or if incapacitated, had made an advance request for treatment -- then doctors were bound to provide artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH).
But last May, the General Medical Council (GMC) -- the medical licensing authority -- took the case to the Appeal Court, arguing that doctors had been placed "in an impossibly difficult position."
The appeal judges have now agreed, overturning the High Court judgment and upholding GMC guidelines on how to treat incapacitated patients.
Those guidelines give doctors the final say in whether a patient should be given life-sustaining "treatment," a term legally defined to include artificial feeding or hydration.
The latest ruling obliges doctors to provide life-prolonging treatment if a terminally ill and mentally competent patient asks for it.
However, once a patient is no longer able to express his or her wishes or is mentally incapacitated, doctors can withdraw treatment, including ANH, if they consider it to be causing suffering or "overly burdensome."
Ultimately, the court said, a patient cannot demand treatment the doctor considers to be "adverse to the patient's clinical needs."
Anti-euthanasia campaigner and author Wesley Smith told Cybercast News Service it was important Burke had taken the case to court because "it is now clear that a patient who can communicate desires cannot have food and water withdrawn.
"That is a line in the sand that is helpful."
However, he added, the judgment had "cast aside" those who were mentally incompetent or unable to communicate their wishes -- "those who bioethicists call non-persons because of incompetence or incommunicability.
"I believe that the judgment clearly implies that the lives of the competent are worth more than the lives of the incompetent since doctors can decide to end life-sustaining medical care, including ANH," said Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America.
Burke was quoted as saying in reaction to the ruling that it held "no good news at all" for people who shared his concerns.
In the light of public health service cuts and underfunding, Burke said he was worried about "the decisions that will have to be made" by doctors in the future.
"I have come to realize that there are quite a few people who feel the same way I do," the Yorkshire Post quoted him as saying. "Not everyone wants to be put down. Not everyone wants their life to be ended prematurely."
Responding to the court's ruling, the GMC said it should reassure patients.
The council's guidelines made it clear "that patients should never be discriminated against on the grounds of disability," said GMC President Prof. Graeme Catto in a statement.
"We have always said that causing patients to die from starvation and dehydration is absolutely unacceptable practice and unlawful."
A professor of palliative medicine at Cardiff University, Baroness Ilora Finlay, supported the court ruling. "Stopping futile interventions allows natural death to occur peacefully," she argued in a British daily newspaper. "This is not euthanasia by the back door."
But the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) took a different view.
The commission was one of several campaigners, including right-to-life activists and patients' groups, which had strongly supported Munby's earlier ruling.
DRC Chairman Bert Massie expressed the group's dismay at the Appeal Court decision, saying it did nothing to dispel the fears of many disabled people that "some doctors make negative, stereotypical assumptions about their quality of life."
It had also "totally ignored" the rights of those who were unable to express their wishes, he added.
[url]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200508\CUL20050802a.html[/url]
2005-08-07 19:01 | User Profile
When the state pays for medicine, it has to work within a budget. Socialized medicine strikes again. Cost benefit analysis, rather than medicine, seems to be the wave of the future.
Who wants to live forever? Who can afford to?
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Terminally Ill Can Be Starved to Death, UK Court Rules By Nicola Brent CNSNews.com Correspondent August 02, 2005 [/QUOTE]
2005-08-07 23:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
"I believe that the judgment clearly implies that the lives of the competent are worth more than the lives of the incompetent
[/QUOTE] Yes, and? What is the purpose or neccessity of keeping a vegetable alive artificially? If you can't eat or drink, on your own, and you never will be able to again, isn't it time to go?
2005-08-08 00:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]When the state pays for medicine, it has to work within a budget. Socialized medicine strikes again. Cost benefit analysis, rather than medicine, seems to be the wave of the future.
Who wants to live forever? Who can afford to?[/QUOTE]
It has been proven that all that medicine that they give you does you more harm than good.
At age 65 all I take is 1/2 of an AlkaZelzer when I eat to much and that's it.
I feel good and never get sick but for a cold about once every five years.
But of course I don't drink, smoke or do drugs and that helps.
On a personal note: Angel? I would love to live for ever instead of only to 132, to much to learn and then to much to teach. Every day I discover something new and the more that I learn the less that I know and that makes me want to learn more......love it.
2005-08-08 00:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]If you can't eat or drink, on your own, and you never will be able to again, isn't it time to go?[/QUOTE]
And you are who to decide?
2005-08-08 00:54 | User Profile
"Wife in the boot" case in Australia:
For anyone unfamiliar with this story, this woman was found unconscious in the boot of her car in Melbourne last year and has been in a coma on life support ever since. Her husband and his lover (they met on an Internet philandering hookup website) were accused of attempting to murder her. The lover has since been convicted of murder, however the husband now looks like he may possibly get off, and was even allowed to attend the funeral of the woman who he cheated on who ended up dead as a result of his infidelity. Despite the outrageous nature of this case, there has been even less public outcry in Australia about this woman being denied sustenance by the state than there was about the Terry Schiavo case, even though that was happening in a different country! -RRP
[url="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1422967.htm"]http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1422967.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]MARK COLVIN: The Melbourne woman, Maria Korp, who was strangled and left for dead in the boot of her car by her husband's former lover, is now likely to die. Victoria's Public Advocate today decided to remove her from life support, which will be done tomorrow.
If Maria Korp dies, her husband Joe Korp could be charged with murder. He's already facing several charges including attempted murder, conspiracy to murder and intentionally causing serious injury.
Alison Caldwell reports.
ALISON CALDWELL: Maria Korp is in a permanent vegetative state at Melbourne's Alfred Hospital. Her neurologist describes her level of consciousness as lower than that of a person in deep anaesthesia.
Victoria's Public Advocate Julian Gardner is her legal guardian. After months of consideration, he's decided to remove Maria Korp from life support.
JULIAN GARDNER: What this in effect means is that she will move to palliative care treatment, and that the provision of artificial nutrition and hydration, that's food and water provided via a peg inserted in her stomach, will cease.[/QUOTE]
2005-08-08 01:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]And you are who to decide?[/QUOTE] Nobody I guess, it is just my opinion. lol.
2005-08-08 11:16 | User Profile
How can any society claim to be civilize if they allow people to be starved to death? There has to be a more humane way. What does the Bible say about something like this?
2005-08-08 15:42 | User Profile
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The antithesis of Christianity is the culture of death. The people of England have offically aligned themselves with the culture of death. And they will be held accountable as a nation.
2005-08-08 17:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The antithesis of Christianity is the culture of death. The people of England have offically aligned themselves with the culture of death. And they will be held accountable as a nation.[/QUOTE]
Nice verses, but I fail to see the relevance.
2005-08-08 17:43 | User Profile
Nice verses, but I fail to see the relevance.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2005-08-08 17:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]Nice verses, but I fail to see the relevance.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.[/QUOTE]
Are you a New Testament only Christian? My question pertained to His laws about killing people. What you've posted has nothing to do with the discussion.
CWRWinger, I hope you are not one of those self-righteous, holier than thou, ââ¬Ësalt lessââ¬â¢ Christians!
2005-08-08 20:41 | User Profile
Do you believe, as some would say, that it is "god's will" or whatever that people like this are in this state? If so, couldn't taking what could be called extraordinary and unnatural measures to keep them alive, be acting against this, in a way? "playing god"etc.
[QUOTE] There has to be a more humane way[/QUOTE]There certainly are more humane ways, but using those more humane ways will really have people in an uproar about how you are "killing"
It is amazing, people will put down a dog or a cat,etc if they are incapacitated or terminally ill, in many cases so they will not have to "suffer" but a person is expected to live to the last possible minute, even though they may be severely brain damaged or in terrible pain. I guess their suffering does not matter as much, to the people who want to impose upon society the idea of a "right to life."
2005-08-10 20:56 | User Profile
That is not the case.
Would you ââ¬Ëput downââ¬â¢ your mother? As an example. Would you allow it? Would you agree to it?
Would you allow a half-educated fool in some hospital to determine if your mother lives or dies?
It is easy to speak of others and how they should be dealt with.
I hope we are mostly Christian here. And allow our people a dignified and correct passing-on. Without the ignorance of fools and their prattle.
Experience of life is more educational than any book or instruction from those that have not lived. And those that have not seen death and the terrible grief involved. The intense sorrow.
We must be more careful.
Mentzer
2005-08-10 21:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mentzer]That is not the case.
Would you ââ¬Ëput downââ¬â¢ your mother? As an example. Would you allow it? Would you agree to it? It is easy to speak of others and how they should be dealt with. [/QUOTE]I would agree that it might be easy to answer a question like that when one is not actually faced with the decision. if she was in a completely incurable state, or she was brain damaged, or especially if she requested this, I would say yes, though as I already said it is easy to simply say that now.
[QUOTE]Would you allow a half-educated fool in some hospital to determine if your mother lives or dies?[/QUOTE]No, and I don't really know who the decision should ultimately be left up to. Even in a case where the particular person decides on these things beforehand, since they are also looking at something that is not actually happening at the time, it also becomes an easier decision. When they are healthy and make the choice they do want to live like this, who is to say, when they are no longer able to communicate that this is still what they want? And the family may not want to let them go, and will in a sense, keep the person around for their own reasons and might not even want to think about what is truly best for the person in the situation. Why hold on, or force someone to hold on, to a life that may no longer be worth living, when death is a part of life for everyone and everything? Especially if you truly believe in any idea of "life after death."
[QUOTE]I hope we are mostly Christian here. And allow our people a dignified and correct passing-on. Without the ignorance of fools and their prattle. [/QUOTE]define "dignified" I would say being forced to go on while you are either lying in a bed, not able to do anything for yourself, and/or being terminally ill and in pain is not dignified, for example. And like I already basically said I don't know if keeping someone alive artificially with certain extraordinary measures is "correct" As for Christians, you do know that there are some that will refuse even medications, like insulin, for example to extend their life and will say they are just going to leave it up to God, or something along those lines?
[QUOTE]Experience of life is more educational than any book or instruction from those that have not lived. And those that have not seen death and the terrible grief involved. The intense sorrow.[/QUOTE]I agree.
2005-08-10 23:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]It is amazing, people will put down a dog or a cat,etc if they are incapacitated or terminally ill, in many cases so they will not have to "suffer" but a person is expected to live to the last possible minute, even though they may be severely brain damaged or in terrible pain. I guess their suffering does not matter as much, to the people who want to impose upon society the idea of a "right to life."[/QUOTE] Surplus dogs and cats are also rounded up and euthanized, or medically experimented on. I hardly think this is the example to which we should refer when discussing the treatment of human beings. In the orthodox Christian viewpoint, each person is infinitely precious, because each person is made in the image of God. We should not keep people alive artificially simply for them to endure further pain, but we should also not simply put them down once their 'quality of life' has declined below some subjective level. In this, as in all things, Christianity strives to look at the whole picture.
2005-08-11 00:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
each person is infinitely precious, because each person is made in the image of God.
[/QUOTE] This may be a bit off topic, maybe. But how many people that claim to believe that each person is "infinitely precious" would truly hold that to be true in the case of someone like John Wayne Gacy, for example?
2005-08-12 23:12 | User Profile
I see.
It is easy to avoid, not only the simple question, but also your duty.
The decision of life or death lies with the next-of-kin. No one else. And dignified means a peaceful passing-away. Without pain or harm. Without fear.
And the next-of-kin must ensure that. And the next-of-kin must take that responsibility. If you are worth anything.
If you allow others that call themselves doctors, with their false pretension and instruction, to intimidate you - then you fail. For you are not strong. And they care not.
You must question.
Stand by your own. And take no lecture from indifferent fools.
Mentzer
2005-08-12 23:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
The decision of life or death lies with the next-of-kin. No one else. And dignified means a peaceful passing-away. Without pain or harm. Without fear.
And the next-of-kin must ensure that. And the next-of-kin must take that responsibility. If you are worth anything.
[/QUOTE] This sounds like you are saying you would support the families decision to choose a quick and painless end. Maybe even if it comes by their own hand, so to speak(shot of morphine,etc)but then other things you say(possibly like the use of the word "harm") suggest not.
2005-08-13 00:09 | User Profile
I will only take what you mean in this case.
State it clearly. For there does exist those that care little for their people. That care not for their mother and father.
I mean principle. And what is your moral outlook on living and dying? The means and the ending - your responsibility? Your duty to your own.
State it.
Mentzer
2005-08-13 00:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]Yes, and? What is the purpose or neccessity of keeping a vegetable alive artificially? If you can't eat or drink, on your own, and you never will be able to again, isn't it time to go?[/QUOTE]
Heck yes. And when you no longer recognize your loved ones, it's also time to go.
2005-08-13 00:29 | User Profile
And that will be your decision - correct?
Mentzer
2005-08-13 00:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE]State it clearly. For there does exist those that care little for their people. That care not for their mother and father.[/QUOTE]I am still not exactly understanding your position here, but from what I assume I would have to ask if you think it somehow indicates that you care more if you keep someone around to the last minute, when it would be much better for them if you were to release them from what has become a life no longer worth living. I would possibly see this as part of my "duty" that you spoke of. I certainly would hope that someone would see this as their duty to me if the situation arose.
2005-08-13 03:16 | User Profile
It is clear you do not understand.
I leave it with you and yours.
May God help them. With something like you.
Mentzer
2005-08-13 03:24 | User Profile
What is it that I am not understanding? And who exactly is someone like me?
2005-08-13 03:37 | User Profile
When you put someone under the earth or to the crematorium - you may comment.
But I know not if you have done so.
What you are is not my concern.
We are worlds apart.
Mentzer
2005-08-13 03:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE][QUOTE=Mentzer]When you put someone under the earth or to the crematorium - you may comment.[/QUOTE]I have not had to personally make any such decisions, yet. But my parents recently did and they went with the "extending life by all possible measures" option and looking at it in hindsight they now wonder what the benefits were in keeping this person alive just for a couple of extra months, when she had no quality of life and was, for the most part, comatose. And they say the typical thing that so many people will say when someone who is terminally ill finally dies. "at least she is no longer in pain" to which I wonder what is positive about, in a way, extending someone's pain,etc. when they could have been let go, weeks or months before, painlessly.
[QUOTE]What you are is not my concern.[/QUOTE]I ask because you said "someone like you" which indicates you have categorized me in some way. And when someone says something like that it is interesting and might be funny to hear what this "category" you have placed me in is.
2005-08-13 04:29 | User Profile
I understand your thinking.
I do not place you into a category of placement.
Life can be hard. Therefore, we must live it as best we can. In correct ways.
Mentzer
2005-08-13 04:51 | User Profile
Get off this forum. You ugly fool.
How many times have you been removed?
Mentzer
2005-08-13 05:53 | User Profile
To all.
We follow the correct way.
We cannot be deflected by fools.
Walk with the Lord or our meaning of it.
Mentzer
2005-08-13 06:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=delabeckwith]I'm back! Tomorow, I think I'll open a box of saltines, just to say " I EAT CRACKERS LIKE YOU FOR BREAKFAST!"
BY THE WAY, I AM:
90% WHITE
A LITTLE BIT: NATIVE AMERICAN
A LITTLE BIT: AFRICAN AMERICAN[/QUOTE] Wow, I am always just so impressed with the many intelligent comments from people like this. It really leaves me at a loss for words.
2005-08-13 06:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=THESEPEOPLEROUNDHERE]Who is your Lord (or your meaning of "it")? Surely not My Father JAH.[/QUOTE] I know you didn't ask me. But my "father" is Yakub, creator of the white devil race who taught me tricknology, the science of lies, so that I, and all the other crafty white devils could keep you down.:yes:
2005-08-13 07:02 | User Profile
If you do get banned I am sure you will just be right back with another name. Are you bored, tonight, nigger? The middle of the month must be a rough time for you, welfare funds running out and all. Not enough money to buy the crack-rock to keep you occupied.:frown:
2005-08-17 03:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=starr]If you do get banned I am sure you will just be right back with another name. Are you bored, tonight, nigger? The middle of the month must be a rough time for you, welfare funds running out and all. Not enough money to buy the crack-rock to keep you occupied.:frown:[/QUOTE]
I placed a statement in response to anothers post on this thread.
That poster is removed. And you understand that.
I think we may be of similar mind and outlook.
Mentzer
2005-08-19 03:57 | User Profile
It may also be noted that within the United Kingdom health service, paid for by the British tax-payer, there is an abundance of African and Asian ââ¬Ëdoctorsââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ënursesââ¬â¢.
They come from backward countries of poor educational record and corrupt certificate.
And they are welcomed by a socialistic UK government and greedy management. The result is filthy hospitals. Unhygienic methods and the spread of disease.
In this time of so-called medical advance, the elderly are dying in record numbers in British hospitals. The younger patients are being infected by Aids-carrying doctors and nurses from Africa.
A British professor recently commentated that it is safer for patients to remain or recover at their homes than in a British hospital. He is now under intense pressure to retract his statements by corrupt politicians or lose his position.
And those evil African and Asian ââ¬Ëdoctorsââ¬â¢ sign death certificates without any thought. For they care nothing for the people they are paid to attend. For those put in their care mean nothing to them. For they knowingly allow people to die and then lie - and they believe they are above suspicion.
But they are the filth of this earth. And will be returned to the filth from which they came.
Mentzer