Everyone is probably familiar with the topic of if we should be able to make the decision to chose when we die. I don't mean suicide but rather the human cessation of life in the face of continued debilitating pain or lose of quality of life. This idea at the moment is illegal. However did you know that children who are the legal medical decision maker over there parents in nursing homes have the right to cease food intake completely? in effect these people have the right to starve there parents to death! Yet they can't decide to have a large amount of say morphine administrated so that a deep sleep turns into a gentle passing!! My wife is a Nurse at a Geriatric Care Facility and we have came across this a few time over the years. To me this is abhorrent and is in essence a legal means of death { if a barbaric one } so why is the morphine choice taken from us?! I mean really dead is dead why not make it as gentle as possible?!!
im not really interested in the thread i will be honest, i just wasnted to say i think it should be moved to ethics justice and morality (you know the crappy one that is completely subjective to the nature of the universe), anyway i didnt wanna just say "move this thread" like a dick coz thats kinda rude. peace.
Well, you can call it what you want, but it's still suicide. Why it's not legal in the USA is a mystery to me. But I think that will change ...in fact, I think it's already changing in some areas/states, isn't it? Nope, it's not so simple as that ...and you know it. The person has to be in a continuing vegatative state with no hope of regaining normal life. There are lots of legal hurdles to withholding life support even in drastic cases. You make it sound so simple as pulling the plug, but it isn't. Remember, that's what Terry Siavo's husband wanted to do, and the whole fucking world was up in arms about it. Legally, he had to fight in the courts numerous times just to get the right to let her die. Even congress was jumping on the bandwagon. Well, then you should know that it's not so easy as you've made it out to be. But don't get me wrong, I agree that we should be permitted to do it in cases of extreme ...ahhh, uselessness of the patient, or in the case of obvious extreme pain. Baron Max
So is letting little Indian kids starve to death, but that's exactly what's happening all over India, Sam, and you know it. How many people die of starvation in India every year? Baron Max
In a globalized world pretty much everyone with their own computer and time on their hands is letting those children die. SAM is not more responsible.
Huh? What's that supposed to mean? Little kids can't eat computers! Sam is Indian, she's/he's living in India, she's/he's living within just a few miles of one of the largest slums in the world - Dahravi slums in Bombay. Sam is far more responsible for it than I am ....just like I'm more responsible for neglecting starving kids in Dallas. Baron Max
Patients can't be denied food unless they are in a vegitative state with no hope of reversal. Their children can't just stop food being given Oregon has an assisted suicide law, but,IIRC, it's under judicial review.
snake river rufus is correct. This is BS unless the patient is irreversibly brain dead (been through this.)
I see you've never had small children! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Expecting everyone to cease their normal lives and take on the responsibility for the suffering of the rest of the world is an extremist liberal do-gooder delusion. As I sit here I have nothing more than a theoretical interest in the millions of starving children in the world. But as baron points out, my interest in local charities is much less theoretical. I live here, interact with the people, etc. I don't suspect that sam gives any more than a theoretical crap about the homeless family on the streets of my city. But she (he?) probably cares a great deal about the ones in her city. It's the monkeysphere: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
convalescent not life support I'm not talking life support patients here I'm speaking of convalescent patients in an old folks home, they need not be brain dead, merely those in control of there medical rights need only decide not to feed them. or to withhold medications and the facility has to comply. With the new HIPAA Guidelines it may be hard to find some cases for you all but ill see if i cant ferret some medical cases out of archives for you.
I think what you're referring to here is that the children of people old age homes can decide not to allow the caretakers to force food 'down their throats', as it were. However, they can not withhold food. Basically, if the old person can't eat or does not want to, they won't be forced. But in no way does this mean that they can "cease food intake completely".
