Charle Gard 21

[11122aa]

While discussion is almost over I have set up this thread incase anyone wants to post any comments to posts in the previous thread.

I don't see how euthanasia could ever be legislated for without a huge risk of abuse.
"I only bumped my granny off because I luffs her" and her millions had nothing to do with it kind of thing.

At the same time, I very strongly believe that people should be allowed a choice over their own life and death. And we, as a society, as HCP and as families, do make some people suffer like we would not allow our beloved pets.
Prolonging life is as much 'playing God' as actively shortening life.
And yes to assisted dying rather than suicide.

I like the phrase 'natural death' or even allowing a natural death to occur.
There is a misunderstanding between what CPR can achieve in case of a sudden cardiac arrest and the inevitability of somebody coming to the end of their natural life span.

The problem arises when the person suffering is so young, a baby, a child or what it considered a young adult - we struggle with the fact that some things are just shit. And unfair and undeserved AND that there is nothing that can be done to change the ultimate outcome, even in 'this day and age' (apparently no suffering or even personal inconvenience is acceptable in 'this day and age' and 'modern medicine' has to stop 'fobbing people off' ).

Place marking.

In German there is an expression for death by somebody's own hand that translates to 'freedeath' (Freitod) - assuming that treatable mental illness was not what drove the act, I quite like that phrase.

Pacific

agelimit, you are too kind, I am fine, I love my job and I am having mid-week

I don't see how euthanasia could ever be legislated for without a huge risk of abuse

How so if we already have a structure for it for 2 types of power of attorney? The same structure could eliminate most capacity for abuse:

• it must be a prior decision made when capacity was still intact
• having one previously signed does not overrule the individuals capacity for decisions so long as they can make their own choices
• they can be reversed

It would only work for relatively slow degenerations, but then again that's the same for POAs. If it's not done in advance it can't be done when it's "needed"

Bottums up to one and all in that case!

You can't just decide to be POA for your dotty aunt and clear her account. It doesn't work that way, so I don't think that sort of abuse would be facilitated by a euthanasia framework.

It would probably also have to go through professional medical and legal consultation process, you couldn't just wave it under your aunts nose and say "sign that dotty, it's to get you cheaper lecey!" and then you can dispose of her quickly!

There would also have to be greater familiarity with the paperwork and how to check it, so that a person could not pitch up at bedside with some random bit of paper claiming to have poa for someone and be believed which may possibly have happened at the workplace of a close friend hem hem

Tinsel, yes, I know there are possibilities to put systems in place.

PoA, whether welfare or financial, has to be granted though, so cannot be given after a sudden event that robs somebody of capacity. Going through a Guardianship application is so much harder on so many levels.

I often have to make capacity assessments and while it is sometimes perfectly obvious that somebody lacks capacity, often it is not. Capacity is task-specific and can vary.
PoAs have the same burden that C+C faced: making best interest decisions when emotionally they might be in quite a different place.

I dunno.
I just think it's fraught with difficulty.
I simply cannot see how any law or set of guidelines/policies can cover ALL possible permutations.

How about the care home nurse who was disciplined by her own professional organisation because she did NOT perform CPR on a resident in her care who she found dead because there was no fucking form in place??
She used her professional experience, made a judgement (IMO the correct one) and was punished for it.
Since this happened, we have had a case of inappropriate calling of 999 and CPR being performed...

We, as a society, are becoming slaves to forms IMO.

Nursing Times article

I think there would be huge limitations on it. It would have to be slow progressing diseases (relatively) and would not apply to all possible situation

But I do think that a framework that could work for the likes of MND could be put in place. Thing is though, and not to belittle how awful MND is, it does eventually end at least!

But with say sudden life changing brain injury that didn't require life support, they might not qualify for the criteria, yet they would be the ones "trapped" in an undignified existance indefinitely

Treatment is an interesting one. I understand that the parents believe the baby had no treatment at all for months. However, he had ventilation, chest physio, pain relief certainly on PICU, tube feeding. If he had been able to recover naturally from an illness, these were all active treatments that could have allowed him to do so. As far as I know tube feeding is considered a medical treatment, hence why it can be lawful to withdraw it in certain circumstances.

Treatment for MND certainly exists but it is symptomatic, not curative. Pain, swallowing problems, weakness, immobility, inability to communicate can all be managed and may be managed for a long time to prolong an acceptable quality of life, but there is no cure. I understand that people with MND may not go onto a ventilator as should they need it, they are unlikely ever to come off it, so it just introduces more risks and limitations without significant benefit. I could well be wrong about that though.

Lost my post, will try again.
My only concern about right to die is that people may make the decision because they feel they are a burden on others.
I have an illness that means DH has to do far more for me than he should have to and have said at times things like 'You'd be better off without me'.
Now I don't really mean it, would never act on it, and should not say it. I have a lot of very good and positive things in my life.
It does concern me though that this may motivate others.
Tinsel your dotty aunt thread made me laugh.

I really enjoy your posts Pacific Dogwood. Always lots to think about.

The cases of mnd that I have seen have been a relatively fast progression from diagnosis, most dying within 6-12 months at most. Rapid deterioration but the cruellest of all us the mind us fine, its like your body shuts off a bit at a time. Dreadful end, you literally suffocate. Can understand why you would want to end it before its natural end. But, when my muscle trouble began that was the first thing the docs thought I had, I said make sure of diagnosis cos I won't wait too long before I chop myself, knowing what mnd was like. Luckily it was not that but similar sort of thing to ms or Parkinson's. Can be difficult to diagnose I suppose but had brain scan in end.

None of my mnd clients I nursed went on ventilators, not even at the end.

They could always be a rule that inheritance is limited if an assisted death occurs.

Sostenuto, answering your previous post.
I think GOSH did not want to do any scans for a long time - as they knew he was deteriorating and it wouldn't change management - which they felt should be palliative. There would have been no benefit to Charlie from scanning him. As some point in all terminal cases we stop all tests because it doesn't help and may harm/cause distress

Then they had to provide evidence of this for other clinicians and the court, and the parents for whatever reason declined - I cannot understand what they were thinking there.

Thanks Adelie I understand now, got a bit confusing there!

Was it ever clarified what the issue was regarding the doctor who arrived (late) to last Wednesday's (?) court meeting? There was talk of him being an intensive care doctor, but then it seemed he was "just" a GP? How on earth did that happen?

About the human rights, there's different kinds. Absolute, limited and qualified rights.

Article 3 - prohibition of torture and inhumane/degrading treatment - is an absolute right. It's one that the government can never contravene EVER. Prohibition of slavery and right to fair trial are others in this category. There's no good reason for these rights to be contravened.

Article 2 - right to life - is a limited right. These can be contravened in limited circumstances, in this one that upholding right to life would be contravening a prohibition of torture and inhumane/degrading treatment. (Others are right to marry - eg if someone's not competent to make the decision; right to liberty - eg if in prison).

Apologies if I've missed a link or source but where did Connie say no pain relief at hospice? Or just on army page? (Though I can't see it there) Surely there is no doubt that a hospice would look after him as much as possible and give him peace?

twitter.com/SlCathy/status/892298384945577984