Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Sticky ethical question

w8kg6

By w8kg6
in General Premed Discussions

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 367
  • Created
  • Last Reply
w8kg6 Newbie

w8kg6

Posted
  • Author
Posted
what happened to this thread? I leave town for five days and now I have no freakin' clue what is going on. oh well :(

 

Al Quaeda wuz here (or so I can only guess, because of the hijackings). Somehow this has become the most replied to thread, except for the WEDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
future_doc Newbie

future_doc

Posted
Posted

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/09/21/alzheimer-dimensia-age.html

 

More than 35 million people around the world are living with Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia and by 2050, it will affect a staggering 115.4 million people. The disease affects one in eight people 65 and older, and nearly one in two people over age 85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
future_doc Newbie

future_doc

Posted
Posted

Christian Rossiter, an Austrlain quadripleplegic, just died. The Court gave him the right to order discontinuance of treatment which maintained his existence, thereby protecting the institution where he lived from criminal prosecution.

 

This was neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia. It affirmed the right of a competent person to choose to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cnussey Newbie

Cnussey

Posted
Posted
Christian Rossiter, an Austrlain quadripleplegic, just died. The Court gave him the right to order discontinuance of treatment which maintained his existence, thereby protecting the institution where he lived from criminal prosecution.

 

This was neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia. It affirmed the right of a competent person to choose to die.

 

Then why not permit people to commit suicide? Many of them can easily be deemed as rational: "I lost my wife and children in a fire, I wish to die" "I lost the ability to move any limbs, I wish to die", etc, etc.

 

IMO, there is little difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewfieMike Newbie

NewfieMike

Posted
Posted
Christian Rossiter, an Austrlain quadripleplegic, just died. The Court gave him the right to order discontinuance of treatment which maintained his existence, thereby protecting the institution where he lived from criminal prosecution.

 

This was neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia. It affirmed the right of a competent person to choose to die.

 

that sounds to me like assisted suicide

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cnussey Newbie

Cnussey

Posted
Posted
Really, did I miss something here. Sounds like he chose to discontinue medical treatment(?)

 

What if the medical treatment was supporting his life? (Ventilator, feeding-tube, etc.) We intervene medical treatment when it comes to blood transfusions and children, but parents have the right to pull children off of ventilators and feeding tubes--is there a difference? Is the chance of survival and quality of life defining factors in what constitutes as suicide or right-to-choose?

 

(muahahaha, I can come up with more questions if y'all are bored!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
future_doc Newbie

future_doc

Posted
Posted
Really, did I miss something here. Sounds like he chose to discontinue medical treatment(?)

 

Actually, he just wanted to refuse food and water b/c this refusdal would need naturally to his death. This was the issue as I understand it.

 

As he was living in an institution, there is no way they would deny him food and water - finding themselves criminally prosecuted boeofore or after his death.

 

The gentleman wisely went to Court to obtain a judgment giving him the right to choose to die. This would also prevent criminal prosecution against the institution where he was living for manslaughter or murder. He obtained the judgment he had sought.

 

In the end, he died from infection while he was starving himself. He had been very active his entire life and no longer wanted to be trapped in his life with zero quality of life in his judgment. He was not assisted in his death, rather he prevented others from interfering with his plan and intent not to feed himself. He did not want to expose the institution to criminal prosecution for failure to act by feeding him. In obtaining the judgment, the insdtitution had no right to feed him and were criminally protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rmorelan Community Regular

rmorelan

Posted
Posted
What if the medical treatment was supporting his life? (Ventilator, feeding-tube, etc.) We intervene medical treatment when it comes to blood transfusions and children, but parents have the right to pull children off of ventilators and feeding tubes--is there a difference? Is the chance of survival and quality of life defining factors in what constitutes as suicide or right-to-choose?

 

(muahahaha, I can come up with more questions if y'all are bored!)

 

hmmm interesting questions! I don't think you can ever force treatment though on people who are reasonably rational. A doctor cannot impose his will over a patient's desires, regardless of how necessary he/she feels a procedure/treatment is .

 

I also don't think parent automatically have that right, or at least it is often removed. My thinking has always been that we assign guardian rights to parents because we believe normally that they a) know the child's desires/goals the best, B) are the mostly likely people in the entire world to act in their best interest, c) we believe children are incapable yet of understanding all of the choices/consequences of possible treatments. As soon as any of these things changes then the parents don't get to make the choices - and if necessary it is brought to the court to decide who should (if anyone) make proxy decisions instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cnussey Newbie

Cnussey

Posted
Posted
hmmm interesting questions! I don't think you can ever force treatment though on people who are reasonably rational. A doctor cannot impose his will over a patient's desires, regardless of how necessary he/she feels a procedure/treatment is .

 

I also don't think parent automatically have that right, or at least it is often removed. My thinking has always been that we assign guardian rights to parents because we believe normally that they a) know the child's desires/goals the best, B) are the mostly likely people in the entire world to act in their best interest, c) we believe children are incapable yet of understanding all of the choices/consequences of possible treatments. As soon as any of these things changes then the parents don't get to make the choices - and if necessary it is brought to the court to decide who should (if anyone) make proxy decisions instead.

 

 

That is true--apparently children do have the right to refuse treatments if they are capable of doing so (I'd like to see my children try!). But where do we distinguish between "enforcing" treatment and suicide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rayven Newbie

Rayven

Posted
Posted
That is true--apparently children do have the right to refuse treatments if they are capable of doing so (I'd like to see my children try!). But where do we distinguish between "enforcing" treatment and suicide?

Probably much like how we deal with jumpers. We try to talk them out of it but it's their choice in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
future_doc Newbie

future_doc

Posted
Posted

UK has very recently changed their interpretation of the law so that a UK resident - accompanying to another country a loved one who is competent to make a rational decision to end his/her life in that other country and carries out tha decision - will not be subject to criminal prosecution when returning home to UK with the body.

 

Until now, a loving companion could not even accompany a loved one woho intended to end their life in another country for fear of criminal prosecution in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...