UK legislation. Courts. End of life. Who decides?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I'm sorry for your condition and the position it puts you in. It's a travesty for you to have to make the decision you do. For you to end your life in sound mind and body will inevitably cut your life shorter, and waste what could possibly good years, depending on your condition. It's sad that you have to keep that picture in your mind ahead of you, just for the sake sparing your family a murder charge. There is no reason in my opinion that you shouldn't be able make that a contract for a later date for your doctor and family decide when you no longer contain your facilities.

I haven't kept up much with the "alfie" decision, is this private funding? If so and the state is prohibiting care from private funds then yes effectively they are starving him to death, I agree. If it's private funds and a doctor is willing to treat the state should have no say. His body his choice if he's not able to make it, certainly that right/responsibility falls on the person that birthed them before the state?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Starving to death is not a good way to go.

Agreed. It is why I condemn withdrawal of nutrients/fluids for euthanasia over a humane morphine shot.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: eletheia

A precedent is always set when a court makes a judgement. It is a foundation of UK justice.

The court has made a judgement on ONE case , the treatment of one

particular patient, every patient has individual specific needs so no

two alike.

*ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL*

Calm down you are beginning to sound hysterical!!!

originally posted by: TheLead
I haven't kept up much with the "alfie" decision, is this private funding? If so and the state is prohibiting care from private funds then yes effectively they are starving him to death, I agree. If it's private funds and a doctor is willing to treat the state should have no say. His body his choice if he's not able to make it, certainly that right/responsibility falls on the person that birthed them before the state?

The Italian state (a fellow EU member state) is willing to accept the responsibility and care for the child (who is now a citizen of Italy) but the UK courts have ordered he must die through starvation, not a humane morphine shot.
I hope if I'm ever in that situation then the UK courts will not starve me.
...thankfully I have a backup plan of an overdose while I am still able to do it myself. The UK state will only allow me to die slowly through starvation or dehydration.

a reply to: eletheia

A precedent is always set in British courts. Read up on UK law maybe?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: eletheia

Behave, he was a psycho killer!!

Isn't that what you keep crying out for? The injection

Off to bed now so only reading replies on my phone with sleepy eyes.
Feel free to keep the discussion going, and apologies in advance for my failure to reply.
If you are arguing against me just please don't give added value to anything I've posted, stick to my words and quote them as you pick them to pieces.

Regards,
CCG.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: eletheia

Behave, he was a psycho killer!!

Isn't that what you keep crying out for? The injection

If Shipman the killer doctor offered me an injection of morphine over euthanasia by starvation or dehydration when close to the end of my independent life, I'd take it. For the record.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Starving to death is not a good way to go.

Agreed. It is why I condemn withdrawal of nutrients/fluids for euthanasia over a humane morphine shot.

I'm with ya, that's just friggin cruel.

Let the kid go to Italy, the UK is absolved of his death they say should have happened already.

Good PR. And who tf knows? Maybe prayer will do some good that all would see!

Maybe the italians have something that can help? Positive energy? A less sterile bureaucracy?

I can see pro bono and love all over that kid if he is moved.

The UK could deport him. Saving face.

I'd be livid if he was my kid.

Prayers for the little dude.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Then is in essence it is still private funding by the way I was meaning it. If the ones that made the decision would be absolved of care then my stance remains.

In the United States, the end of life is determined by when the money runs out.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: eletheia

A precedent is always set when a court makes a judgement. It is a foundation of UK justice.

The court has made a judgement on ONE case , the treatment of one

particular patient, every patient has individual specific needs so no

two alike.

*ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL*

Calm down you are beginning to sound hysterical!!!

This judgement is not just from any UK court it is from the supreme court, I agree that one size doesn't fit all, a common pitfall for all bureaucracies . However judgements from the supreme court set the standard (precedent) for court cases in our country.

In the case of Alfie's family vs. the state they (the court) decided that Alfie couldn't travel to Rome because he could not breath on his own, however apart from the occasions his parents pushed air in to his lungs with their mouths, he has managed to breath on his own, calling the judgement into question.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
In the United States, the end of life is determined by when the money runs out.

True dat.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

The Italian state (a fellow EU member state) is willing to accept the responsibility and care for the child (who is now a citizen of Italy)

They have offered him nothing different to what he is getting here so

why the up heavel to end up in exact same situation?

but the UK courts have ordered he must die through starvation,

Can you provide a link for that? As all I have got is that his life support

be stopped. And this was asked for by his father to which the court agreed.

Nothing about his nutrition line and certainly nothing

about ordering his death through starvation.

originally posted by: eletheia
Can you provide a link for that? As all I have got is that his life support

Search it yourself, the court ordered withdrawal of life support which includes ventilation and tube feeding. The child is staying alive so far without ventilation just occassional loving breaths of mouth to mouth by his parents, so the court is relying on lack of fluids/nourishment to kill him.
Cruel euthanasia which would be illegal if someone chose such an option for their sick dog in the UK.
How you can defend that I have no idea.
I wish you a good night. Have a think about starving a terminally ill person to death instead of a humane morphine shot.
I know which option I think is repugnant.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

The Italian state (a fellow EU member state) is willing to accept the responsibility and care for the child (who is now a citizen of Italy)

They have offered him nothing different to what he is getting here so

why the up heavel to end up in exact same situation?

but the UK courts have ordered he must die through starvation,

Can you provide a link for that? As all I have got is that his life support

be stopped. And this was asked for by his father to which the court agreed.

Nothing about his nutrition line and certainly nothing

about ordering his death through starvation.

The court initially ruled that all life caring treatment be removed from Alfie this meant oxygen, food and water (air, nutrition and liquid) over 3 day's ago. Link

May I ask what you consider to be life support ?

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet



Gravity.

I believe there are two different issues here; one being end of life care for an adult and the other- life saving treatment at all costs for a child.
Alfie should be given every chance available for treatment even outside of the U.K.; this should not be up to a judge at all.
An adult that is suffering an incurable illness and wishes to end life should be able to if they so choose.

I was a hospice and geriatric nurse in the US. No one was starved if able to eat and drink. There may or may not have been times when the amount of morphine given caused death because of the pain level the patient was experiencing even unconscious (eating and drinking had ceased at this point) while moaning in pain. It is an unspoken understanding in hospice care to keep the patient comfortable no matter what. It is horrifying for the patient and the family to watch their loved one in pain. Think of hospice as midwives for the afterlife.

UK law is frightening to me to hear you have so little control....

originally posted by: Onlyyouknow
I believe there are two different issues here; one being end of life care for an adult and the other- life saving treatment at all costs for a child.
Alfie should be given every chance available for treatment even outside of the U.K.; this should not be up to a judge at all.
An adult that is suffering an incurable illness and wishes to end life should be able to if they so choose.

I was a hospice and geriatric nurse in the US. No one was starved if able to eat and drink. There may or may not have been times when the amount of morphine given caused death because of the pain level the patient was experiencing even unconscious (eating and drinking had ceased at this point) while moaning in pain. It is an unspoken understanding in hospice care to keep the patient comfortable no matter what. It is horrifying for the patient and the family to watch their loved one in pain. Think of hospice as midwives for the afterlife.

UK law is frightening to me to hear you have so little control....

There is no alternative treatment available in Italy. The Italian doctors who examined him confirmed that.

It's just a decision about if it is better for him to be let die now or keep him alive artificially. That is very much an ethical decision, not a medical one.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Investigate the use a 'Advance Health Directive which enables you to write down your decisions about the specific treatment and health care you would want in certain medical circumstances. You will need to sign it in front of independant witnessess such as JP or notary etc.

Keep it in a safe place and tell right people within your family and friends.

In any event, according to Dr Day who was pediatrican in the US in the 1960's. He gave a talk to another group of docotors,which had the title of "Everything Is in Place and Noone Can Stop use now."

There is over 100 items in that list but here are just two of them related to health.

Euthanasia and the "Demise Pill"

Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And after you have had enough of them and you're no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation. Some things that would help people realize that they had lived long enough; he mentioned several of these... I don't remember them all... here are a few: Use of very pale printing ink on forms that people... are necessary... to fill out, so that older people wouldn't be able to read the pale ink as easily and would need to go to younger people for help. Automobile traffic patterns - there would be more high-speed traffic lanes. . traffic patterns that would ... that older people with their slower reflexes would have trouble dealing with and thus, lose some of their independence.

Limiting access to affordable Medical Care makes Eliminating the Elderly Easier

A big item – that was elaborated at some length – was the cost of medical care would be burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one's work, but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. And unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care. And the idea was that if everybody says:

"Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people … then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. And then the real example was - there could be like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill."

Planning the Control over Medicine
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation was made:

"Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. That [in 1969, he said] is now, abundantly evident. But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control health care."

These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay... you pay for it, you're entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realize the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished. As an aside here – this is not something that was developed at this time ... I didn't understand it at the time -as an aside, the way this works, everybody's made dependent on insurance. And if you don't have insurance then you pay directly; the cost of your care is enormous. The insurance company, however, paying for your care, does not pay that same amount. If you are charged, say, $600 on your part, they pay $300 or $400. And that differential in billing has the desired effect: It enables the insurance company to pay for that which you could never pay for. They get a discount that's unavailable to you. When you see your bill you're grateful that the insurance company could do that. And in this way you are dependent, and virtually required to have insurance.

Rest easy, when you are no longer of any economic value to the state you will be put into heavens waiting room and if you stay there for too long you will be 'helped' into heaven.

cheers