Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

Prolonging death?

(11 Posts)
tatt Mon 09-Jul-07 17:44:18

Article ( see below) in the times about a doctor who gave massive doses of a drug to two babies who were dying. This was done with the consent of the parents who "fully supported the doctor's actions and were grateful to him". But someone, believed to be a nurse, reported him.

Anyone else like to murder the interfering busybody?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2045207.e ce

SueBaroo Mon 09-Jul-07 17:54:24

I'm anti-euthanasia, but I don't understand why this case has been brought, tbh. From the little information we're given, it appears the Doctor was using the double-effect principle, where a treatment is given to ease suffering and has the secondary effect of hastening death. I don't have a problem with that.

<<confused>>

geekgirl Mon 09-Jul-07 17:55:56

working link please?

ThisIsDavinaPleaseDoNotSwear Mon 09-Jul-07 18:02:09

who are saying was the interfering busy body?
The doctor for doing what he did or the nurses for reporting it.

I am an ex nurse and pro euthanasia in certain circumstances (I have witnessed alot of very lovely people endure horrible, drawn out deaths despite the medical and nursing staff doing everything within their power to make it easier) its a truly dreadful time for the family aswell as the person dying.

I think that these babies had probably suffered enough tbh (and the parents)

Whooosh Mon 09-Jul-07 18:04:35

I hope you mean the nurse for reporting it....

tatt Mon 09-Jul-07 18:12:17

meant the person who reported him. The babies can't suffer any more but this is going to make the parents feel terrible. More people may have to suffer in future because doctors will fear being reported.

I think he was reported because of the size of the dose he gave which was claimed to be "active intervention to hasten death" rather than easing suffering. But no-one is saying the babies wouldn't still have died -only in more pain - if he'd given a lower dose.

Nightynight Mon 09-Jul-07 19:39:47

it must have been a terrible situation, and should have stayed private.

BBBeeRose Mon 09-Jul-07 19:54:28

link

am pro-euthanasia - agree ThisIsDavinaPleaseDoNotSwear

tatt Thu 12-Jul-07 15:06:49

Glad to see the GMSC acted sensibly for once - allowing him to carry on practising - even if he did have to say he wouldn't do it again.

butterbeer Fri 13-Jul-07 11:21:40

I think that one of his colleagues did say that the babies might not still have died.

[Checks BBC site]

Yes...

In written testimony, one colleague, Dr Phil Booth, said Dr Munro was wrong to stop Baby X's care.

He said: "If withdrawal of care is being discussed it merited discussion with a senior colleague. I wouldn't have agreed with withdrawal of care at the time, it's possible the baby could have survived."

I think the issue was that he didn't follow protocols -- didn't discuss what he was planning to do with any colleagues and then lied about having done it afterwards -- that raised alarm bells. What he did was acceptable under the principle of dual effect, but it was the way he did it that was unprofessional.

tatt Sat 14-Jul-07 10:36:51

thank you - I hadn't seen the bbc article orignially. Still the possibility of survival existed only when the decision to withdraw treatement was made. Treatment was withdrawn and at the time of the injection the baby had only minutes to live. I would have had no problem with the original decision to withdraw treatment being questioned. That needs to be separated from the decision to ease their suffering afterwards.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now