I seen a little bit of the Leslie Burke story on the news earlier. Basically he has had to fight to ensure that once his condition degenerates (he has cerebellar ataxia) and he can no longer swallow or communicate that he will receive artificial nutrition. He feared being left to starve to death.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3938879.stm

"The GMC guidance covers situations where death is not imminent, but doctors believe a patient's condition is so severe, and their prognosis so poor, that artificial nutrition or hydration - giving water - causes more suffering than benefit."

I can understand how hard it must be for doctors in this situation, they are indeed playing God. Even so, when someones quality of life is so poor it is believed that to carry on providing treatment would cause more suffering, I still find it horrifying that patients in these circumstances are basically starved to death. Terri Schiavo apparently took 2 weeks to die after doctors removed her feeding tube. I cannot imagine the suffering of either patient or family once doctors have reached that decision.

And what about those that have to fight for their right to die?! This withdrawal of artificial nutrition or hydration is in effect euthanasia. It seems to me hypocrisy that those that are seriously ill and want to live have to fight for this right and those that cannot endure their suffering any longer have to fight to be allowed to die. If I was ever so ill that the prospect of carrying on was infinitely harder than dying I think it's my right to be allowed to die with at least a modicum of dignity and when I choose. However, the thought of getting so ill I cannot convey my wishes to medical staff and being allowed to starve to death is a horrifying prospect.

Would you fight for your right to live or die in these circumstances? Or are you happy to leave your fate to the Doctors?

if there is no chance of recovery and you're condition will just worsen then why would you want to be artificially fed and watered, it's just prolonging your suffering.

Originally posted by Cyclone
if there is no chance of recovery and you're condition will just worsen then why would you want to be artificially fed and watered, it's just prolonging your suffering.

but isn't being allowed to starve to death or die of thirst prolonging suffering? How does that help anyone? It can take anything up to two weeks for this to happen. Where is the humanity in that? I've seen it and it's absolutely awful, for the victim and the carers and relatives. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

IMO it's inhumane, the least we can do for our fellow beings is to ease their passage out of this world if that's what's going to happen anyway. It's what I'd want for myself and for my loved ones, anyway.

In my opinion everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions in these situations. If they are unable to, their family and friends should take the decision on their behalf, not medical personnel who have no knowledge of the person and their circumstances and beliefs.

if there is no chance of recovery and you're condition will just worsen then why would you want to be artificially fed and watered, it's just prolonging your suffering.

It's also prolonging his life, if you look at it from his point of view. I'm sure that prolonging his suffering isn't a factor affecting his decision.

He may have religious beliefs that cause him to label non-intervention in prolonging his life as being a sin (or rather his acceptance of the non-intervention as being a sin in itself) , or he may well have no religious beliefs and simply want to squeeze every last second out of his life knowing that once its gone, its gone.

It would be hugely expensive to keep everyone alive in similar circumstances if we all made the same demands. We should all have whatever treatment we desire with no waiting lists, in a perfect world, but this is far from a perfect world. It's one that's drifting further and further away from such social ideals. In this world, if you have the money, you can have whatever treatment you please. He has every right to question his future treatment when the very duration of his life is being dictated by others, but I'm sure it's doomed to failure.

In its simplest terms, if the fella wants food and water, he should have it.

I completely agree with that, but then he should be suing the government to change the law on euthanasia, not suing the gmc to force a doctor to keep him alive artificially when he should by rights be dead.
Normally next of kin do make any decisions like that unless specific instructions were lodged in advance, but our law makes no provision for any type of mercy killing yet. I'm sure it will change, but it might be another 20 years before it does.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
but isn't being allowed to starve to death or die of thirst prolonging suffering? How does that help anyone? It can take anything up to two weeks for this to happen. I've seen it and it's absolutely awful, for the victim and the carers and relatives. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

IMO it's inhumane, the least we can do for our fellow beings is to ease their passage out of this world if that's what's going to happen anyway. It's what I'd want for myself and for my loved ones, anyway.

When my dog lost the use of her legs, through old age, she was terribly distressed and the vet came and within minutes she fell asleep and her suffering was at an end.

*removed*

Keeping my dog in that condition would have been considered cruel and I'd probably have been prosecuted. But a beloved mother could be allowed to thirst and starve to death ... where is the humanity in that?

In my opinion everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions in these situations. If they are unable to, their family and friends should take the decision on their behalf, not medical personnel who have no knowledge of the person and their circumstances and beliefs.

Originally posted by Cyclone
if there is no chance of recovery and you're condition will just worsen then why would you want to be artificially fed and watered, it's just prolonging your suffering. [/B]

But surely Cyclone it's a personal decision. This man clearly does want to prolong his life, no matter what the prognosis. I think that is his right.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I completely agree with that, but then he should be suing the government to change the law on euthanasia, not suing the gmc to force a doctor to keep him alive artificially when he should by rights be dead.
Normally next of kin do make any decisions like that unless specific instructions were lodged in advance, but our law makes no provision for any type of mercy killing yet. I'm sure it will change, but it might be another 20 years before it does. [/B]


I don't think changing the laws on euthanasia will help his fight to live rather it will make it easier for him to die when he chooses. Many people that "by rights should be dead" are still alive and well because of advances in medicine. Where do we draw the line? It's science against nature. Medical advances mean we now have the power to fight for and sustain life where previously nature would of defeated us. I just find it crazy that currently as the law stands on euthanasia coupled with current GMC guidelines it means those that want to live have to fight for their right to treatment and those that cannot endure anymore suffering have to fight to end that suffering painlessly and with dignity.

I've benn through this sort of situation twice, and it never easy.

My grandmother became quite ill. She was in and out of hospital many times, ending up in hospital for an extended period. Family members tried to visit her as often as they could. She was in a lot of pain and being medicated to control the pain. When lucid she kept saying that she didn't want to be there.

I spoke to the ward nurse. I asked if there was anything they could do to... you know... make her more comfortable.

It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. I don't know if the nurse understood what I meant by "you know...", but from growing up in a medical family I know it's the sort of thing that gets asked.

Last year my grandfather started losing his mind. He moved into a nursing home, but broke his hip and had to go into hospital. I felt a bit guilty that work committments had stopped me seeing my grandmother as often as I wanted. I moved chunks of work out of the way and managed to get to visit my grandfather almost every day.

My grandmother's mind was still there to the end, her body was failing her. With my grandfather, though, his mind went while his body was still there. He rarely knew who I was at the end, but I went to visit him; I'd just talk to him holding his hand. I'd talk about the weather, the news, things I'd done at work. Anything really, just to be talking to him and give him a voice to listen to.

It was very hard. A lot of the time it was like talking to nobody. It was hard filling in both sides of the conversation. He occasionally would be lucid. He'd say he wanted to go home.

He died in his sleep but at the end he didn't even know who he was or what was happening to him. I'm glad I was able to see him more than I was able to see my grandmother.

This is such an emotive topic, and I know I don't have nearly half the answers to the questions such situations pose.

The thing I find inhumane is that the medical experts, when presented with a situation where an individual has no quality of life, and deem that that life should not continue for the sake of the patient, can not do more to ease that individuals suffering.

The Brits are a nation of animal lovers. When we see our beloved pets get old or sick, we think nothing of doing the 'right thing' in choosing when to let medicine interene, and ending the animals sufferring with dignity and little pain.

I find it inconceivabe we cannot currently extend the same kindness to our own species.

K x

This is a very difficult issue, and i'm sure we all have our views based on our own experience/feelings.

My view, in this particular case is: if he wants to make sure he is not 'starved to death' then that is his right.

I think it is totally unacceptable in today's society that we treat animals better than we treat humans - ie: we do not let animals/pets 'suffer' so we put them out of their misery as that is seen as 'kindest' so why do we not offer the same level of compassion to humans?

If I were in a position where death was iminent and I was not able to get anything out of my remaining life - for example I was comatose then I would rather be given an 'injection' than left to starve to death.

Under current legislation, the 'injection' that we consider to be 'kind' to animals is denied to humans.

How would you feel if your pet was left to 'starve to death' wouldn't we consider that to be an abhorrent crime?

I find this question so difficult to answer. I veer between preserving life at all times and then feeling that quality of life - and personal or family wishes - should be allowed precedence.

I will watch this thread grow, and see if that helps me make up my mind.

It is difficult Redrobbo isn't it?

In my own case I have a potential problem - I am a wholehearted believer in organ donation - but my parents aren't. As I am single (and likely to be for the foreseeable future) my parents are my next of kin.

I am on the organ donation register, I carry a card at all times and I have made my family aware of my wishes. My parents have said they could not agree to organ donation should I be in that 'situation' and they were left with the decision. I understand from medical friends that the final decision would be with my next of kin - so my wishes would be totally ignored!

I have had some quite direct discussion with my parents about this (and they usually change the subject by saying they will be the first to go so the issue is all nonsense) but it really does bother me that I may be in a position to save the lives of other people after my death and that my wishes could be over-ruled by my parents?!

Sorry to stray off subject slightly

Originally posted by cobaltblue
But surely Cyclone it's a personal decision. This man clearly does want to prolong his life, no matter what the prognosis. I think that is his right.




I don't think changing the laws on euthanasia will help his fight to live rather it will make it easier for him to die when he chooses. Many people that "by rights should be dead" are still alive and well because of advances in medicine. Where do we draw the line? It's science against nature. Medical advances mean we now have the power to fight for and sustain life where previously nature would of defeated us. I just find it crazy that currently as the law stands on euthanasia coupled with current GMC guidelines it means those that want to live have to fight for their right to treatment and those that cannot endure anymore suffering have to fight to end that suffering painlessly and with dignity.

I wasn't suggesting that it would. I was saying that if the reason he's fighting is because he doesn't want to die by starving and dehydrating, but would instead prefer to die quickly and painlessly... it's supposition, he hasn't explained what his reasoning is as far as ive seen.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I wasn't suggesting that it would. I was saying that if the reason he's fighting is because he doesn't want to die by starving and dehydrating, but would instead prefer to die quickly and painlessly... it's supposition, he hasn't explained what his reasoning is as far as ive seen.

Just a quick intervention here. I edited my contribution to the discussion for the reason explained there and asked Cyclone to edit his as a consequence of quoting me. It's maybe made his contribution, as quoted above, slightly ambiguous. If so, I apologise and thanks again to Cyclone for complying with my request.

I, too, am torn about this subject.

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, in the "Terri Schiavo" topic, My Mother was in a similar condition to Terri, after having a brain haemmorage.

it was dreadful:- so incredibly painful and traumatic, to see my Mother in the condition she was in.

Despite this, though, I am a believer in "Where there's life, there's hope".

I would hope if anything hapened like that, to me, I would hope that everything practicable would be done to help me.

I can see the point of view of people like Diane Pretty, wanting the option of choosing when she was to end her life, and to ensure that her husband be protected from prosecution for assisting her.

I also see the point of view of this other chap, who has been on the news yesterday, who wishes the doctors be interventionist, and prolong his life as far as is possible.

The euthanasia supporting group, (exit?) does worry me, though, because, I wonder - who is to say that someone would not be coerced into deciding to be euthanased, because they are made to feel that they are/ are becoming a burden? (be it on their family, their doctors, or the "system")

We need to have so much security in place, legislating about this, because it would be so easy to "bump off" great aunt Gertude for the inheritance, if one felt that she was not "Shuffling off this mortal coil" quickly enough to be convenient.

PT

Originally posted by Cyclone
I wasn't suggesting that it would. I was saying that if the reason he's fighting is because he doesn't want to die by starving and dehydrating, but would instead prefer to die quickly and painlessly... it's supposition, he hasn't explained what his reasoning is as far as ive seen.

Sorry Cyclone, my apologies for not making it clear. I saw him in further interviews and he wants to squeeze every possible second from life.

He said he would not want feeding to be withheld, "even if it's only a matter of an extra couple of days, or a couple of weeks". He argued the guidance should be changed so that doctors will have to presume a patient wants to carry on living.

Originally posted by redrobbo
I find this question so difficult to answer. I veer between preserving life at all times and then feeling that quality of life - and personal or family wishes - should be allowed precedence.

I will watch this thread grow, and see if that helps me make up my mind.

I agree Redrobbo, it think wherever possible life should be preserved, especially when these are the personal wishes of the patient. GMC guidelines meant this man had to fight to ensure his would be as doctors may have decided his life was no longer viable.

I think it is sad, cruel and frightening that even though medical intervention will prolong his life AND these are his wishes, without fighting through court he may well have been denied that right.

Originally posted by cobaltblue
I agree Redrobbo, it think wherever possible life should be preserved, especially when these are the personal wishes of the patient.

I have been an approved social worker under the Mental Health Act 1983. Many times I have compulsorily ordered a mentally ill person into psychiatric hospital, (commonly referred to as 'sectioned'), for assessment and/or treatment. Sometimes I performed this duty because the individual was suidical, and may indeed have made an attempt on their own lives. When they were later of sound mind, such patients have often told me that they were glad they didn't die, and that someone intervened to save their lives.

If we allowed people to determine when they died, even those terminally or seriously ill and with the most distressing of symptoms, why shouldn't we allow the suicidally depressed to end their lives?

Originally posted by redrobbo
I have been an approved social worker under the Mental Health Act 1983. Many times I have compulsorily ordered a mentally ill person into psychiatric hospital, (commonly referred to as 'sectioned'), for assessment and/or treatment. Sometimes I performed this duty because the individual was suidical, and may indeed have made an attempt on their own lives. When they were later of sound mind, such patients have often told me that they were glad they didn't die, and that someone intervened to save their lives.

If we allowed people to determine when they died, even those terminally or seriously ill and with the most distressing of symptoms, why shouldn't we allow the suicidally depressed to end their lives?

This is when it gets extremely complicated and subjective. As you say there are those that in effect have been saved by your own intervention and they have been grateful for that intervention. Left to their own devices they would not be in a position to express that gratitude.

I think for the most part those that are suicidally depressed will be successful in carrying out their wishes, as they are physically able to and if are really serious usually do not express these wishes to anyone. I have lost a friend through suicide who I have no doubt had he received medical treatment would still be here today and would have a full happy life.

So I guess that makes me a no, no I don't think we should allow suicidally depressed to end their lives where we have a chance to intervene. I think the difference lies in the state of mind of the individual. Leslie Burke is fighting to preserve his life while Diane Pretty was fighting to be allowed her right to die. Their sanity is or was not in question therefore I think they deserve those rights they are fighting/fought for.

Originally posted by redrobbo
I have been an approved social worker under the Mental Health Act 1983. Many times I have compulsorily ordered a mentally ill person into psychiatric hospital, (commonly referred to as 'sectioned'), for assessment and/or treatment. Sometimes I performed this duty because the individual was suidical, and may indeed have made an attempt on their own lives. When they were later of sound mind, such patients have often told me that they were glad they didn't die, and that someone intervened to save their lives.

If we allowed people to determine when they died, even those terminally or seriously ill and with the most distressing of symptoms, why shouldn't we allow the suicidally depressed to end their lives?

in the case of someone who you sectioned you've determined that they are not of sound mind. If someone can prove that they are then what right do we have to interfere in what they do with their life, be that live it or end it.