|
Post by Annan on Jun 29, 2014 15:22:43 GMT -5
I was doing a hospice visit today and picked up some pamphlets laying about that talked about withholding food and oxygen for the terminally ill. One of the arguments was that while some believe food and oxygen to be a basic human right, others feel that if the body cannot feed itself or obtain enough oxygen on it's own that giving food and/or oxygen is prolonging a natural death.
At what point should a feeding tube be given or discontinued? People have lived in vegetative states for many years (Karen Quinlan for ten years and another woman who's name I forget lived for 48 years) with a feeding tube. Would not removing a feeding tube and letting a person die be willful euthanasia? I read one account today where a doctor refused to remove a feeding tube saying that a feeding tube should never have been placed. It seems the decision is easier not to place a feeding tube than to make the decision to remove it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 29, 2014 15:50:04 GMT -5
I was doing a hospice visit today and picked up some pamphlets laying about that talked about withholding food and oxygen for the terminally ill. One of the arguments was that while some believe food and oxygen to be a basic human right, others feel that if the body cannot feed itself or obtain enough oxygen on it's own that giving food and/or oxygen is prolonging a natural death. At what point should a feeding tube be given or discontinued? People have lived in vegetative states for many years (Karen Quinlan for ten years and another woman who's name I forget lived for 48 years) with a feeding tube. Would not removing a feeding tube and letting a person die be willful euthanasia? I read one account today where a doctor refused to remove a feeding tube saying that a feeding tube should never have been placed. It seems the decision is easier not to place a feeding tube than to make the decision to remove it. That's interesting and something my siblings and I went through with my mom in January. She just had a massive stroke and was paralized on her left side. It was very deep and extensive with no hope of her ever walking. The doctors didn't think she would live through the night a few days in. But she did. She couldn't eat because she would have choked, couldn't talk etc. but it became apparent that she was going to live and we would need to make a decision about feeding her. She didn't want us to prolong her life before it happened. However, half of the family wanted a feeding tube and the other half didn't. The half that didn't felt that it would just prolong things and make her suffer longer. However, they did do a feeding tube because the half that wanted it were so upset thinking we were starving her to death. So I do recognize that it is a hard decision to make even if there is a wish to not to be kept alive. She did live another two months on it but then got pneumonia and passed away. I really feel she would have hated living not being able to feed herself, having to be moved from bed to a wheelchair etc. She was a going concern right up till her stroke and she was still aware enough after the stroke to know what she couldn't do anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 18:16:41 GMT -5
I was doing a hospice visit today and picked up some pamphlets laying about that talked about withholding food and oxygen for the terminally ill. One of the arguments was that while some believe food and oxygen to be a basic human right, others feel that if the body cannot feed itself or obtain enough oxygen on it's own that giving food and/or oxygen is prolonging a natural death. At what point should a feeding tube be given or discontinued? People have lived in vegetative states for many years (Karen Quinlan for ten years and another woman who's name I forget lived for 48 years) with a feeding tube. Would not removing a feeding tube and letting a person die be willful euthanasia? I read one account today where a doctor refused to remove a feeding tube saying that a feeding tube should never have been placed. It seems the decision is easier not to place a feeding tube than to make the decision to remove it. the other woman is betty Gin&tonic
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jun 29, 2014 20:19:25 GMT -5
I was doing a hospice visit today and picked up some pamphlets laying about that talked about withholding food and oxygen for the terminally ill. One of the arguments was that while some believe food and oxygen to be a basic human right, others feel that if the body cannot feed itself or obtain enough oxygen on it's own that giving food and/or oxygen is prolonging a natural death. At what point should a feeding tube be given or discontinued? People have lived in vegetative states for many years (Karen Quinlan for ten years and another woman who's name I forget lived for 48 years) with a feeding tube. Would not removing a feeding tube and letting a person die be willful euthanasia? I read one account today where a doctor refused to remove a feeding tube saying that a feeding tube should never have been placed. It seems the decision is easier not to place a feeding tube than to make the decision to remove it. That's interesting and something my siblings and I went through with my mom in January. She just had a massive stroke and was paralized on her left side. It was very deep and extensive with no hope of her ever walking. The doctors didn't think she would live through the night a few days in. But she did. She couldn't eat because she would have choked, couldn't talk etc. but it became apparent that she was going to live and we would need to make a decision about feeding her. She didn't want us to prolong her life before it happened. However, half of the family wanted a feeding tube and the other half didn't. The half that didn't felt that it would just prolong things and make her suffer longer. However, they did do a feeding tube because the half that wanted it were so upset thinking we were starving her to death. So I do recognize that it is a hard decision to make even if there is a wish to not to be kept alive. She did live another two months on it but then got pneumonia and passed away. I really feel she would have hated living not being able to feed herself, having to be moved from bed to a wheelchair etc. She was a going concern right up till her stroke and she was still aware enough after the stroke to know what she couldn't do anymore. Sorry for what your family had to go through concerning your mother. It is said that once the body starts shutting down/actively dying that the need for nourishment diminishes. Comfort meds are usually given and so it is believed that the patient feels no pain and is able to progress through the dying process comfortably. From what I have seen in hospice situations, this seems to be true. At times medical costs come into play in making medical decisions. Who pays when the insurance has reached it's ceiling? I can only imagine how heartbreaking it must be to be faced with having to "pull the plug" because you can no longer afford to pay the medical costs.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 29, 2014 20:43:36 GMT -5
That's interesting and something my siblings and I went through with my mom in January. She just had a massive stroke and was paralized on her left side. It was very deep and extensive with no hope of her ever walking. The doctors didn't think she would live through the night a few days in. But she did. She couldn't eat because she would have choked, couldn't talk etc. but it became apparent that she was going to live and we would need to make a decision about feeding her. She didn't want us to prolong her life before it happened. However, half of the family wanted a feeding tube and the other half didn't. The half that didn't felt that it would just prolong things and make her suffer longer. However, they did do a feeding tube because the half that wanted it were so upset thinking we were starving her to death. So I do recognize that it is a hard decision to make even if there is a wish to not to be kept alive. She did live another two months on it but then got pneumonia and passed away. I really feel she would have hated living not being able to feed herself, having to be moved from bed to a wheelchair etc. She was a going concern right up till her stroke and she was still aware enough after the stroke to know what she couldn't do anymore. Sorry for what your family had to go through concerning your mother. It is said that once the body starts shutting down/actively dying that the need for nourishment diminishes. Comfort meds are usually given and so it is believed that the patient feels no pain and is able to progress through the dying process comfortably. From what I have seen in hospice situations, this seems to be true. At times medical costs come into play in making medical decisions. Who pays when the insurance has reached it's ceiling? I can only imagine how heartbreaking it must be to be faced with having to "pull the plug" because you can no longer afford to pay the medical costs. Yes, that's what I have found in my experience as a hospice volunteer too. However, in my family's case, there were so many emotions going on that they wouldn't believe the doctors or me when we tried to assure them of how it usually worked. I don't have much say in that family because it was my birth mom that I found about 14 years ago. So they were my half brothers and sisters and I was never raised with them. When my brother, the oldest for years before they found me, said that he wanted a feeding tube, then all his sisters but one agreed with him. So I just stepped aside because I felt it wasn't my right to interfere other than educating them and letting them make the decision. Families have to deal with the shock and their grief in their own ways. Thankfully, in Canada, there is no problem with medical costs getting too high like in the States. The only thing that may become an issue is possibly a medication that they only pay a portion of. Most of the time all medications are paid for while in the hospital. Once they move them to hospice though, the family does have to pay. That was something I didn't know until my aunt was in that position.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 29, 2014 20:50:50 GMT -5
My folks had sat down with me and my siblings a few times over the past several years to go over their plans for various things including what they did and didn't want if they were incapacitated and we had to make medical decisions for them. These were never the most pleasant conversations....especially the first one, but over time, they became a matter of fact and I'm sure, as a result, we were much better prepared as a family when my father had a serious stroke.
When we were faced with a decision about whether or not my father should get a feeding tube, although technically it was my mother's decision, she consulted with us children and we were all in agreement about what we thought our father would want. After the initial stroke, a feeding tube would have made sense, because he was very alert and determined, but not able to swallow without choking. A feeding tube might have helped him get past the first big hump of disability so later he could work on his recovery. Fortunately, his swallow reflex returned enough that a feeding tube didn't have to be put in place. Months later, when additional strokes stripped away his hard-earned progress, including his ability to swallow, the trajectory was clearly much different, and it was pretty obvious that he was slipping away from us.
Those conversations we had as a family well in advance of crisis - though initially awkward - were well worth having. I highly recommend doing this.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 29, 2014 20:58:45 GMT -5
My folks had sat down with me and my siblings a few times over the past several years to go over their plans for various things including what they did and didn't want if they were incapacitated and we had to make medical decisions for them. These were never the most pleasant conversations....especially the first one, but over time, they became a matter of fact and I'm sure, as a result, we were much better prepared as a family when my father had a serious stroke. When we were faced with a decision about whether or not my father should get a feeding tube, although technically it was my mother's decision, she consulted with us children and we were all in agreement about what we thought our father would want. After the initial stroke, a feeding tube would have made sense, because he was very alert and determined, but not able to swallow without choking. A feeding tube might have helped him get past the first big hump of disability so later he could work on his recovery. Fortunately, his swallow reflex returned enough that a feeding tube didn't have to be put in place. Months later, when additional strokes stripped away his hard-earned progress, including his ability to swallow, the trajectory was clearly much different, and it was pretty obvious that he was slipping away from us. Those conversations we had as a family well in advance of crisis - though initially awkward - were well worth having. I highly recommend doing this. They are very important for sure. I was never part of that family so really didn't feel comfortable with making decisions unless asked. We have sat down as a family with my children letting them know what to do when or if that ever happens to us. The experience with my birth mom really brought it home clearly that we needed to do that. I didn't want my children going through what I had just experienced.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jun 29, 2014 21:29:17 GMT -5
Seems like the world would rather you live a long time miserable than a shorter time happy. People should have the right to choose death over pain, loss of most functions etc. Chronic pain is very tiring and draining, it wears you down and as it increases to levels where you are so highly medicated you can't function anyway, it should be a choice imo. I live with chronic pain, and I know what it is like. If there comes a time when I can't function in the world because of medications to help with the pain, I will want a choice. I understand what you're saying, Snow! Also, not only if the medications cause a disability but if the reason for the pain continues to degrade and causes things of no return, then sometimes it seems it would be a kinder thing to do and that is to die. And no, I'm not thinking suicide...but when you're given continuous new diagnosis for things that are mixed up in that new diagnosis from years before, it just is quite discouraging, isn't it!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 29, 2014 21:40:40 GMT -5
Seems like the world would rather you live a long time miserable than a shorter time happy. People should have the right to choose death over pain, loss of most functions etc. Chronic pain is very tiring and draining, it wears you down and as it increases to levels where you are so highly medicated you can't function anyway, it should be a choice imo. I live with chronic pain, and I know what it is like. If there comes a time when I can't function in the world because of medications to help with the pain, I will want a choice. I understand what you're saying, Snow! Also, not only if the medications cause a disability but if the reason for the pain continues to degrade and causes things of no return, then sometimes it seems it would be a kinder thing to do and that is to die. And no, I'm not thinking suicide...but when you're given continuous new diagnosis for things that are mixed up in that new diagnosis from years before, it just is quite discouraging, isn't it! Yes, it does get discouraging. I have a fairly benign issue in comparison to some. It must be very difficult for those diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease for instance. They know it is terminal and that at some point before death they will lose all ability to take care of themselves. Also pain. Why should they not have the right to choose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 1:58:41 GMT -5
Allegation "In Holland they: kill people in comas."
From the Australian, our most respected newspaper Re Dutch prince in coma.
"... six months after the Austrian skiing accident, the 43-year-old prince is still in a deep coma in a London hospital - and his country is debating whether he should be allowed to die. "It's questionable whether the prince will ever have a normal life again," said Heleen Dupuis, a medical ethicist, chairwoman of the Dutch care organisation for disabled people and a member of the upper house of parliament. "I understand that the chances are extremely small. Had the prince been sent to a Dutch hospital, doctors would probably have turned off the life support systems because there is such a slim possibility that he will ever recover."
... "If there is no improvement in the patient's condition, consultations are normally held in the Netherlands as to whether to continue treatment," said Erwin Kompanje of the Erasmus hospital in Rotterdam.
The Netherlands has only 30 long-term coma patients, and since 2002 the country has had a so-called euthanasia law that gives doctors the theoretical possibility of ending treatment if they deem a victim's suffering to be "interminable and unbearable".
There are many conditions attached: only patients over 16 can be allowed to die in this way; all other routes have to be exhausted; and an independent medical opinion has to be sought. The country's right-to-die organisation, NVVE, has its own advisory service; it claims more than 130,000 members."
Two points - 1 - beware of ethicists, one study of stolen library book by subject found that students of ethics stole the most books. 2 - the "conditions" attached to coma patients are non-nonsensical - by definition a coma patient is a candidate for euthanasia. (good thing Michael Schumacher wasn't in Holland)
ps to someone who suggested Holland isn't that bad at euthanasia - my argument is about euthanasia, not Holland, so my case is better than I thought.
Unless someone can contradict me on this coma point I will proceed to the next allegation
In Holland they: kill people without reporting it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 30, 2014 13:07:58 GMT -5
Allegation "In Holland they: kill people in comas."
From the Australian, our most respected newspaper Re Dutch prince in coma. "... six months after the Austrian skiing accident, the 43-year-old prince is still in a deep coma in a London hospital - and his country is debating whether he should be allowed to die. "It's questionable whether the prince will ever have a normal life again," said Heleen Dupuis, a medical ethicist, chairwoman of the Dutch care organisation for disabled people and a member of the upper house of parliament. "I understand that the chances are extremely small. Had the prince been sent to a Dutch hospital, doctors would probably have turned off the life support systems because there is such a slim possibility that he will ever recover."
... "If there is no improvement in the patient's condition, consultations are normally held in the Netherlands as to whether to continue treatment," said Erwin Kompanje of the Erasmus hospital in Rotterdam.
The Netherlands has only 30 long-term coma patients, and since 2002 the country has had a so-called euthanasia law that gives doctors the theoretical possibility of ending treatment if they deem a victim's suffering to be "interminable and unbearable".
There are many conditions attached: only patients over 16 can be allowed to die in this way; all other routes have to be exhausted; and an independent medical opinion has to be sought. The country's right-to-die organisation, NVVE, has its own advisory service; it claims more than 130,000 members."
Two points - 1 - beware of ethicists, one study of stolen library book by subject found that students of ethics stole the most books. 2 - the "conditions" attached to coma patients are non-nonsensical - by definition a coma patient is a candidate for euthanasia. (good thing Michael Schumacher wasn't in Holland) ps to someone who suggested Holland isn't that bad at euthanasia - my argument is about euthanasia, not Holland, so my case is better than I thought. Unless someone can contradict me on this coma point I will proceed to the next allegation In Holland they: kill people without reporting it. Bert, I think in any system you are going to find abuses. However, does that mean we should never put a good system into place, just because it might be abused? I don't think so. I truly want to have a choice when the time comes and it's too much. From what the doctors tell me it is going to get progressively worse and there is nothing they can do but add more medications. At some point that will mean not functioning and it's actually already starting in small, but noticeable ways. I have been to many specialists and they all say the same, there is nothing more they can do. So shouldn't I have the option without making my children murderers? How much more so should this be an alternative for someone diagnosed with a disease like Lou Gehrigs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 4:06:27 GMT -5
This is not about "abuse" These things are quite legal and legitimate in Holland.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2014 10:12:47 GMT -5
This is not about "abuse" These things are quite legal and legitimate in Holland. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it can't be abuse of a good system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 20:48:26 GMT -5
"Legal" means you can, for instance, inform old people in a nursing home of their rights under laws of euthanasia. "Semi legal" is to ask them are they ready to be euthanized, given the burden they are to themselves, their family and their society. "Abuse" is to just euthanize them without asking.
Each step makes the next step seem less onerous.
I will answer this one when I get the time In Holland they: kill people without reporting it.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 1, 2014 20:51:04 GMT -5
"Legal" means you can, for instance, inform old people in a nursing home of their rights under laws of euthanasia. "Semi legal" is to ask them are they ready to be euthanized, given the burden they are to themselves, their family and their society. "Abuse" is to just euthanize them without asking. Each step makes the next step seem less onerous. I will answer this one when I get the time In Holland they: kill people without reporting it.I suppose murder is an abuse. I do not understand the semi legal comment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 20:57:38 GMT -5
Applying pressure to people to take the "euthanasia option" would not be enshrined in law, anywhere. Until people start pushing the boundaries, and actually start doing it. Then the law plays catchup with the changing social attitudes.
Who knows, maybe one day you yourself will be told you are being a burden on your society by being old or sick. You will be reminded of our inter-generational debt burden. You will be told about the environment, whatever, rah rah rah.
Only a brave person would say that won't happen. In fact, it's happening now. Already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 19:56:50 GMT -5
This thread has gone strangely, predictably, QUIET. Dutch News Tuesday 24 September 2013The number of people opting to die by euthanasia rose by 13% last year to 4,188, according to the five regional committees charged with ensuring the legal conditions for assisted suicide are met.
Euthanasia requests have risen steadily since 2006 when 1,923 people applied for assisted suicide.
Researchers have been unable to determine why the number of cases is rising, but say they suspect it is due to greater acceptance of euthanasia by both patients and doctors.
A large majority of last year's requests came from people with cancer - 3,251. In 42 cases, people with dementia were involved and 13 had severe psychiatric problems.
Inspectors
In just 10 cases, the committees ruled doctors had not met all the conditions for assisted suicide and involved health ministry inspectors. Two of these related to dementia patients and the difficulty of ensuring they had given informed consent.
Some 80% of people who opt for mercy killing die at home.
- See more at: www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/09/euthanasia_requests_rose_in_20.php#sthash.5VkHv6ho.dpuf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2014 20:03:24 GMT -5
Allegation In Holland they: kill people without reporting it.
That figure, according to the Lancet, is 23%. About one quarter of all euthanasia cases. press.thelancet.com/netherlands_euthanasia.pdfGood book "Exposing vulnerable people to euthanasia"Review quote, "The global euthanasia movement is agitating to overturn centuries of legal protection for people with chronic, disabling, and terminal illnesses. Euthanasia campaigners insist that Belgium and the Netherlands have perfected their euthanasia laws. This book shows that euthanasia has not been “made safe” for vulnerable people in those countries. Euthanasia advocates tell us that the practice of euthanasia never exceeds the limits of law. In court cases, policy studies and media stories in favour of euthanasia, advocates claim that Belgium’s euthanasia records are complete and transparent. The fact is, official reports do not disclose the scale of euthanasia in Belgium. Belgium’s doctors do not adhere strictly to the euthanasia laws. Almost half of those euthanized in Belgium were never reported to the authorities. Many of the dead have never given a legal request for their own euthanasia deaths...."Next I will review the allegation they: kill babies and childrenRegardless of whether anyone even reads this post. It's good education for me, seeing how I said these things could happen way back in the 1980's. Now we are as bad as the Nazi's gassing handicapped people in the back of trucks. Who knows what group we will start killing next.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 2, 2014 20:37:15 GMT -5
Applying pressure to people to take the "euthanasia option" would not be enshrined in law, anywhere. Until people start pushing the boundaries, and actually start doing it. Then the law plays catchup with the changing social attitudes. Who knows, maybe one day you yourself will be told you are being a burden on your society by being old or sick. You will be reminded of our inter-generational debt burden. You will be told about the environment, whatever, rah rah rah. Only a brave person would say that won't happen. In fact, it's happening now. Already. If I understand correctly, euthanasia is suicide. Suicide might or might not be legal. Assisted suicide might or might not be legal. Is that what you mean by "semi legal"?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 2, 2014 21:56:43 GMT -5
Applying pressure to people to take the "euthanasia option" would not be enshrined in law, anywhere. Until people start pushing the boundaries, and actually start doing it. Then the law plays catchup with the changing social attitudes. Who knows, maybe one day you yourself will be told you are being a burden on your society by being old or sick. You will be reminded of our inter-generational debt burden. You will be told about the environment, whatever, rah rah rah. Only a brave person would say that won't happen. In fact, it's happening now. Already. People have practiced euthanasia for millennia. It is the influence of Western Christianity on the Western conscience that makes euthanasia repulsive in our society. That's why laws were put in place forbidding it. They generally served a good moral purpose until we arrived at a time when we can keep vegetative humans alive indefinitely.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 2, 2014 22:32:55 GMT -5
Applying pressure to people to take the "euthanasia option" would not be enshrined in law, anywhere. Until people start pushing the boundaries, and actually start doing it. Then the law plays catchup with the changing social attitudes. Who knows, maybe one day you yourself will be told you are being a burden on your society by being old or sick. You will be reminded of our inter-generational debt burden. You will be told about the environment, whatever, rah rah rah. Only a brave person would say that won't happen. In fact, it's happening now. Already. People have practiced euthanasia for millennia. It is the influence of Western Christianity on the Western conscience that makes euthanasia repulsive in our society. That's why laws were put in place forbidding it. They generally served a good moral purpose until we arrived at a time when we can keep vegetative humans alive indefinitely. Not only that the elderly in come cultures committed suicide so they wouldn't be a burden on the tribe. I for one would rather do that and give the young coming up behind me a chance at life by having what I would be taking. I recognize our world is quite different now and there technically is enough for everyone. The point is: they had a choice.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 2, 2014 23:31:49 GMT -5
Applying pressure to people to take the "euthanasia option" would not be enshrined in law, anywhere. Until people start pushing the boundaries, and actually start doing it. Then the law plays catchup with the changing social attitudes. Who knows, maybe one day you yourself will be told you are being a burden on your society by being old or sick. You will be reminded of our inter-generational debt burden. You will be told about the environment, whatever, rah rah rah. Only a brave person would say that won't happen. In fact, it's happening now. Already. Bert, all I'm asking for is that the law doesn't state that I must be kept alive beyond what I choose!
Why do you think that I shouldn't have that choice?
Why must I be kept alive because you are against me being able to decide that for myself?
Why must I be kept alive just because of your fears?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 3, 2014 19:09:41 GMT -5
Applying pressure to people to take the "euthanasia option" would not be enshrined in law, anywhere. Until people start pushing the boundaries, and actually start doing it. Then the law plays catchup with the changing social attitudes. Who knows, maybe one day you yourself will be told you are being a burden on your society by being old or sick. You will be reminded of our inter-generational debt burden. You will be told about the environment, whatever, rah rah rah. Only a brave person would say that won't happen. In fact, it's happening now. Already. Bert, all I'm asking for is that the law doesn't state that I must be kept alive beyond what I choose!
Why do think that I shouldn't have that choice?
Why must I be kept alive because you are against me being able to decide that for myself?
Why must I be kept alive just because of your fears?
This thread has gone strangely quiet.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 3, 2014 19:59:44 GMT -5
This thread has gone strangely quiet. wait 3 days
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 3, 2014 20:05:25 GMT -5
Do you think they've all been euthanized?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 23:25:10 GMT -5
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-03/nitschke-criticised-over-45yo-mans-suicide/5570162"Australia's leading euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke is under fire for communicating with a suicidal man, despite knowing he was not terminally ill or elderly. Perth man Nigel Brayley, 45, died in May this year after taking the euthanasia drug Nembutal, which he illegally imported. In emails obtained by the ABC, Mr Brayley admitted to Dr Nitschke he was not "supporting a terminal medical illness", but said he was "suffering". Now Dr Nitschke is being accused of moving into uncharted territory by agreeing to assist Mr Brayley despite knowing he was not terminally ill. "If a 45-year-old comes to a rational decision to end his life, researches it in the way he does, meticulously, and decides that ... now is the time I wish to end my life, they should be supported. And we did support him in that," The emails this man sent Nitschke were found by his sister, if I recall. His sister said her brother was going through a rough patch in his life - nothing more. And he would have come out of it as he had done before. Another man, about 29 I think, ticked an "Over 50?" box on Nitschke's check list and got his euthanasia kit. Nitschke said it wasn't his fault if someone lied on a check list. This Nitschke was famous here in Australia in the 1980's for laying out the reasons and rules for euthanasia. He was moving the goal post of "do not kill" to a new point where it would remain fast by Federal Govt. legislation. But once the goal posts were pulled out - that was it. And Nitschke himself has been the one constantly shifting them.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 3, 2014 23:48:09 GMT -5
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-03/nitschke-criticised-over-45yo-mans-suicide/5570162"Australia's leading euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke is under fire for communicating with a suicidal man, despite knowing he was not terminally ill or elderly. Perth man Nigel Brayley, 45, died in May this year after taking the euthanasia drug Nembutal, which he illegally imported. In emails obtained by the ABC, Mr Brayley admitted to Dr Nitschke he was not "supporting a terminal medical illness", but said he was "suffering". Now Dr Nitschke is being accused of moving into uncharted territory by agreeing to assist Mr Brayley despite knowing he was not terminally ill. "If a 45-year-old comes to a rational decision to end his life, researches it in the way he does, meticulously, and decides that ... now is the time I wish to end my life, they should be supported. And we did support him in that," The emails this man sent Nitschke were found by his sister, if I recall. His sister said her brother was going through a rough patch in his life - nothing more. And he would have come out of it as he had done before. Another man, about 29 I think, ticked an "Over 50?" box on Nitschke's check list and got his euthanasia kit. Nitschke said it wasn't his fault if someone lied on a check list. This Nitschke was famous here in Australia in the 1980's for laying out the reasons and rules for euthanasia. He was moving the goal post of "do not kill" to a new point where it would remain fast by Federal Govt. legislation. But once the goal posts were pulled out - that was it. And Nitschke himself has been the one constantly shifting them. So which is the problem: Nitschke or euthanasia?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 23:52:56 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert, all I'm asking for is that the law doesn't state that I must be kept alive beyond what I choose! Why do think that I shouldn't have that choice? Why must I be kept alive because you are against me being able to decide that for myself? Why must I be kept alive just because of your fears?"
Not MY fears - lots of people's fears. Your "right" has already licensed abuse on a large scale.
|
|