To think a lot of MN are ableist?

It is a form of passive euthanasia.

Consent or no consent, you are deliberately withholding medical, potentially life extending treatment because of the DNR. If in the normal run of things, a person would ordinarily be offered this treatment then it is a divergence from the normal way we would treat someone and therefore is a form of euthanasia.

The fact you don't want it to be recognised as such is not relevant. DNRs are a form of euthanasia as they rebut the assumption that life extending treatment will be offered.

Whatever way you look at it, DNRs are not the opposite to AD. They are both forms of euthanasia. The opposite of both DNR and AD is providing additional life extending treatment beyond what is ordinarily available to people.

Perhaps they should live a while in our shoes.

They don't need to have walked in your shoes to have a valid opinion. This is AIBU.

Don't bother responding. It's clear that this thread was supposed to be an echo chamber.

While its 'considered a type of passive euthanasia' to quote some sources in regards to the laws around DNR, it's a nothing phrase, and what it's doing is ascribing a reactive behaviour to a natural process.

The fact that medically we have the ability to interfere in the natural process of death to attempt resuscitation doesn't mean it deserves to be given a name that makes it sound like we're actively helping someone to die. We aren't.

Eta: removing life sustaining treatment by choice probably is 'passive euthanasia, however that is an entirely different scenario than someone sick or elderly (or both) having a DNR that means when their body naturally dies, that we don't interfere. I don't think the latter deserves to be labelled as 'passive euthanasia'

Passive euthanasia is the act of allowing a patient to die naturally by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatments,

This is ridiculous! Of course it is.

Exactly its always in the child's best interest ,s .

DNR is not any kind of euthanasia,
Let alone passive , its an inaction to try and save a life
Whereas Assisted Dying ,is actively helping a person to die..

No, I didn't say that. You have interpreted a comma to mean 'or' rather than 'and'. My posts upthread clarify that I have only ever advocated it for cases of terminal illness where there is a very poor quality of life and very poor prognosis.

It's not about whether a life is worth living. The life is ending anyway and it's about managing death at that point.

I think some posters on this thread feel like they have complete impunity to insult other posters and accuse them of whatever they like. Then in the same breath will look to report and delete any post that they find upsetting and accuse MN of ableism if they don't comply. I'm afraid what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want a respectful forum then you have to be part of that.

If there's no hope for a child to survive and have a quality of life, hospitals already have the authority to take a child's parents to court if they disagree about withdrawing treatment such as the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

Doctors will act in the best interests of the child to minimise any unnecessary suffering.

I was told a number of times when my son was in intensive care and he took a few turns for the worse that some difficult conversations may need to start happening soon. Thankfully it never came to that but they were very clear it was very likely because of how critically unwell he was at the time that at some point, they would reach a line and it would be ''Is this really in his best interests? Or is this just going to cause him more suffering?''.

Applying the duck hypothesis, I am comfortable with the eugenicist accusation and will not be withdrawing it. Even in this post, you admit that you are in favor of the killing of, not just terminally ill babies, but also ones with a 'poor quality of life'. Again, I ask, who gets to decide on the threshhold for a life being considered worth living? Most sensible and caring people would be horrified about the idea of the law allowing for such arbitrary and subjective life and death decisions being made about disabled babies.

DNR = not wanting granny's ribs splintered to matchsticks whilst medics attempt to restart her heart

AD = ending the suffering of terminally ill people with the ability to consent, and with appropriate safeguards, when there is no hope of improvement and no quality of life

Ending a disabled person's life without their consent = the kind of criminal act that (rightly) puts people in jail for a very long time

Christ.

It absolutely is a form of passive euthanasia. We have to remain factual here.

Yes I know the damage that resuscitation can cause.

DNR is NOT passive euthanasia, that person is dead/ in the process of natural death.

I also suggest you do some research on the the stats on how much physical harm is done during CPR, and how many people it actually brings back to life, and the age of the people it's successful for.

What you see on TV shows is not the reality.

DNR is a form of passive euthanasia
AD is active euthanasia

They are both forms of euthanasia and potentially life shortening. They are absolutely not the opposite of each other.

Look, i am a believer in the merits of AD for consenting adults with Terminal Illness.

However, what you're talking about is not that. You're talking about what the AD movement is strongly trying to prevent, and putting legal measures in to make sure it doesn't and cannot happen.. that being OTHER PEOPLE making the decision to KILL someone because they think they don't deserve to live/shouldn't be here.

Its the difference between assisted SUICIDE and assisted MURDER.

What don't you get about that?

AM of medically unwell people is eugenics.

I fear there is no reasoning with someone so entirely lacking in both humanity and understanding.
It is beyond depressing that this thred, attempting to hold MN to account for its total inaction on hate speech aimed at disabled children and adults has descended into another sickening cesspit of the most appaling ableist views being freely shared. We now have multiple posters coldly and matter of factly calling for the murder of all severely disabled babies and the MN mods do absolutely nothing. Shame on them, we will not forget and it is proof, once again, that this site is not a safe or welcoming place for disabled users, though those who want us dead are greeted with open arms.

What are you talking about eugenicist? Honestly you make me sick! What is eugenicist about extending AD to people who can't consent if you have the same safeguards we already have with DNR and the threshold for AD was high enough e.g. terminal illness , high levels of suffering etc.

It is utterly disgusting how posters are merrily accusing other posters of the most horrific things. I'm assuming you weren't born terminally ill as a baby so it's not even relevant to your situation. Read posts properly before posting such inflammatory irrelevant bile. I've clarified earlier upthread the specifics around the AD I'm referring to

They're complete opposites.

in AD the person is alive, you're choosing to end it.

In a DNR they're dead, and you're choosing not to interfere to restore life.

They're in NO way related.

They are different but they both ultimately lead to the potential shortening of a life versus what would happen if an alternative decision was made.

Both prioritise other things over simply length of life

Not attempting resuscitation means not actively doing anything when someone goes into cardiac arrest
Resuscitation often doesn't work and can be brutal
Assisted dying is activly ending someone, s life by with drawing life saving treatments ,medications
And giving medications that induce death of course they are different.

In your terrifying eugenicist fantasy world, who gets to decide who would be better off 'put out of their misery'? I am glad nobody was able to make that decision for me as a severely physically disabled baby since I have lived a very happy, rich and fulfilling life thank you very much, even if compassionate souls like you probably think I'd have been better off dead. That says far more about the value you place on human life and your inability to imagine that a severely disabled child could ever experience a happy life because it might look different to yours than it does about the worth and capacity of disabled children.

Show me where i have said they are?

On that note, actually don't. Stop replying to me, you have nothing to say that i have any desire to pay further attention to.

I feel incredibly lucky that he was the consultant that happened to be on call for the children's assessment ward that night.

Thanks. I hope the same for your son too.

Don't state opinion as fact. Of course not ending someone's life is discriminatory if that is considered the most humane and compassion outcome for that person.

Slightly different but we already effectively place DNR orders on people now that do not give their consent but where it is considered in that person's best interest. Do you agree with this? If so, why is this ok but AD isn't if the decisions are being made with the same rationale?

We don't live in a country where this is a possibility. We do live in a country where people can discuss whether all life is sacred. It doesn't make someone bad for raising the question. Italy prioritised the young and healthy during covid at the expense of the elderly and disabled. Sometimes we need to be pragmatic especially when it comes to scarce resources.

That gave me a lump in my throat
I hope " George" remains well and continues to live a fulfilled life