Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Do you agree with euthanasia?


lifetime fan
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

What that someone doesn’t agree with you?  

 

Seems like the state thought you were wrong too.  Entire countries think you’re wrong too.  

 

Whilst I agree with your general stance on this, you're such a fucking prick. Every line you write is laced with cuntishness and ignorance. So what if a state or a country thinks you're wrong, what sort of evidence is that? Are you going to be happy to submit to that argument if Corbyn gets in and tries to nationalise your industry? Sorry, Rico, your opinion is invalid because the state thinks you're wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

What that someone doesn’t agree with you?  

 

Seems like the state thought you were wrong too.  Entire countries think you’re wrong too.  

 

You've just been arguing that governance doesn't matter and now you're approving their approach to... Wait for it... Governance. Which is exactly what I've just been discussing with you.

 

So tell me, which part did the state think I was wrong on? The getting the governance in place or the getting the governance in place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Whilst I agree with your general stance on this, you're such a fucking prick. Every line you write is laced with cuntishness and ignorance. So what if a state or a country thinks you're wrong, what sort of evidence is that? Are you going to be happy to submit to that argument if Corbyn gets in and tries to nationalise your industry? Sorry, Rico, your opinion is invalid because the state thinks you're wrong. 

Found it amusing if I'm honest. Imagine if that was your stance on topics - women shouldn't have rights. Why not Rico? Because Saudi Arabia thinks you're wrong. A whole country thinks you're wrong.

 

Well then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Seasons said:

You've just been arguing that governance doesn't matter and now you're approving their approach to... Wait for it... Governance. Which is exactly what I've just been discussing with you.

 

So tell me, which part did the state think I was wrong on? The getting the governance in place or the getting the governance in place?

What are you on about ? You said it was too hard to get governance right and gave an example.  I said it wasn’t a good argument and then showed that other countries and states didn’t think it was too hard. I also said the rules are likely to develop but the example looked a good start. 

 

You won’t get a perfect law, you seem to think we shouldn’t legislate until every scenario has been explored and mitigated. That can’t happen and in the interim people are suffering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Seasons said:

Found it amusing if I'm honest. Imagine if that was your stance on topics - women shouldn't have rights. Why not Rico? Because Saudi Arabia thinks you're wrong. A whole country thinks you're wrong.

 

Well then.

But that’s not what was said. You said it was too hard, I showed others didn’t think it was too hard.  There you go.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

What are you on about ? You said it was too hard to get governance right and gave an example.  I said it wasn’t a good argument and then showed that other countries and states didn’t think it was too hard. I also said the rules are likely to develop but the example looked a good start. 

 

You won’t get a perfect law, you seem to think we shouldn’t legislate until every scenario has been explored and mitigated. That can’t happen and in the interim people are suffering. 

 

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

But that’s not what was said. You said it was too hard, I showed others didn’t think it was too hard.  There you go.  

But I didn't say it was "too hard". Those were your words. I said it would be difficult and a minefield to navigate through. I've also said that because other countries do it doesn't mean that its "not that hard", I highlighted that there are cases where this hasn't been the case. From both professional and person case law.

 

The argument we are having here is that you seem to think that rolling it out without any care for the casualties is acceptable if it helps those who are suffering at this very minute. I'm more of a think of the worse case scenario first and reduce the casualties before it becomes a disaster. Unfortunately that means the short-term patients might not benefit until risks can be managed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Seasons said:

 

But I didn't say it was "too hard". Those were your words. I said it would be difficult and a minefield to navigate through. I've also said that because other countries do it doesn't mean that its "not that hard", I highlighted that there are cases where this hasn't been the case. From both professional and person case law.

 

The argument we are having here is that you seem to think that rolling it out without any care for the casualties is acceptable if it helps those who are suffering at this very minute. I'm more of a think of the worse case scenario first and reduce the casualties before it becomes a disaster. Unfortunately that means the short-term patients might not benefit until risks can be managed.

 

But do you not think other jurisdictions have managed the risks?

Are there any “worst case scenarios” that have actually come to pass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

But do you not think other jurisdictions have managed the risks?

Are there any “worst case scenarios” that have actually come to pass?

I'm not sure they have because even in social care examples of abuse happen every day (e.g. Families trying to withdraw care of their mother for inheritance or to reduce personal strain on their lives). I've read a couple of cases my phone but can't read the full stories (flying back from Turkey later today). I'll post a few up tomorrow if I'm not shattered.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Seasons said:

 

But I didn't say it was "too hard". Those were your words. I said it would be difficult and a minefield to navigate through. I've also said that because other countries do it doesn't mean that its "not that hard", I highlighted that there are cases where this hasn't been the case. From both professional and person case law.

 

The argument we are having here is that you seem to think that rolling it out without any care for the casualties is acceptable if it helps those who are suffering at this very minute. I'm more of a think of the worse case scenario first and reduce the casualties before it becomes a disaster. Unfortunately that means the short-term patients might not benefit until risks can be managed.

 

What? I’ve acknowledged it’s hard, I have never advocated no or poor governance.  No wonder you found it amusing you were reading something else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

What? I’ve acknowledged it’s hard, I have never advocated no or poor governance.  No wonder you found it amusing you were reading something else. 

You said it wasn't hard. In fact, you've said other countries do it and there it can't be that difficult to implement. You then proceeded to say those countries think I'm wrong. And you also said that people will try and game any legislation but that should prevent the greater good accessing it.

 

I'm not reading something else Rico. You want it enforced to people can access it. I eant it to be thought out before people can access it. I want to reduce the casualties and consider them as equally important as those suffering.

 

We're on the same page here but your emotive cuntish stance us getting in the way of us agreeing on this topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Seasons said:

I'm not sure they have because even in social care examples of abuse happen every day (e.g. Families trying to withdraw care of their mother for inheritance or to reduce personal strain on their lives). I've read a couple of cases my phone but can't read the full stories (flying back from Turkey later today). I'll post a few up tomorrow if I'm not shattered.

 

 

So would you change the current law? 

 

When you've had doctors put DNAR notices on patient files of those with a LD or MH condition without consulting or even discussing with the patients families?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Seasons said:

You said it wasn't hard. In fact, you've said other countries do it and there it can't be that difficult to implement. You then proceeded to say those countries think I'm wrong. And you also said that people will try and game any legislation but that should prevent the greater good accessing it.

 

I'm not reading something else Rico. You want it enforced to people can access it. I eant it to be thought out before people can access it. I want to reduce the casualties and consider them as equally important as those suffering.

 

We're on the same page here but your emotive cuntish stance us getting in the way of us agreeing on this topic.

 

Yes mate. That’s exactly what happened.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

 

So would you change the current law? 

 

When you've had doctors put DNAR notices on patient files of those with a LD or MH condition without consulting or even discussing with the patients families?  

It depends on the context doesn't it? Did those patients have capacity? Did they discuss it with their doctor or did the doctor decide it was in the patients best interest? I'm all for informing the family members and often it's the usual practice however it is ultimately a medical decision and not a person or emotive one. 

 

Quote

Clinicians recognise that, whilst CPR is appropriate to try to prevent avoidable deaths, it is not appropriate for people who were at the end of their life because of irreversible medical conditions. Inevitably there are sometimes differences of opinion between clinicians and patients about when that point has been reached and it is appropriate to reach a DNACPR decision. DNACPR is one of very few decisions made by a doctor to withhold or withdraw a treatment that is subject to policy and procedure – with dedicated documentation. Sometimes clinicians decide that telling a patient about a DNACPR decision would place an inappropriate burden on them, causing them serious harm. This is a highly sensitive matter. In all but the most exceptional cases the clinician should seek to discuss the issue with the patient. An NHS trust’s alleged failure to inform a patient with Down’s syndrome and dementia – or those close to him – that clinicians had decided not to administer CPR, should it be necessary, has led to a legal challenge currently before the courts. In that case, the family is also challenging the actual DNACPR decision. Decisions not to attempt resuscitation on certain patients - and the justifications behind them - came under particular scrutiny in the UK in 2000. A 67 year old woman with cancer and severe infection saw a ‘do not resuscitate’ decision on her medical notes after she was admitted for treatment. The matter had not been discussed with her or her family. The subsequent media debate highlighted concern that decisions around life-sustaining treatment were being taken without adequate discussion with the patient even where they had capacity. This highlighted the absolute importance of advance care planning wherever possible. This should provide the patient with the opportunity to state their wishes and preferences around future treatments to sustain life. During such discussions, clinicians should also seek the patient’s views about whether they would want to be informed if, at some future point, clinicians decided that a treatment such as CPR would not be successful and therefore would not be attempted. To provide a genuine refusal to engage in such conversations, the patient would need to be given some basic information about such treatments.

 

https://www.lwdwtraining.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DNACPR-decisions-who-decides-and-how-Sept-2012.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Seasons said:

It depends on the context doesn't it? Did those patients have capacity? Did they discuss it with their doctor or did the doctor decide it was in the patients best interest? I'm all for informing the family members and often it's the usual practice however it is ultimately a medical decision and not a person or emotive one. 

 

 

https://www.lwdwtraining.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DNACPR-decisions-who-decides-and-how-Sept-2012.pdf

 

No. 

 

I’m talking about doctors deciding to put a DNAR notice on a patients medical file stating the reason for the DNAR as ‘Learning Disability’ and ‘Downs Syndrome’ simply when they’d come into hospital for a routine medical procedure. 

 

Despite these patients having family contact it was never discussed with their family members.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

 

No. 

 

I’m talking about doctors deciding to put a DNAR notice on a patients medical file stating the reason for the DNAR as ‘Learning Disability’ and ‘Downs Syndrome’ simply when they’d come into hospital for a routine medical procedure. 

 

Despite these patients having family contact it was never discussed with their family members.  

 

Perhaps a lack of understanding of the 'quality of life'? That being said, I'm pretty convinced that if that was ever challenged they'd immediately take this off as it would question their Hippocratic Oath. 

 

Just to highlight that putting a DNAR on someone because they have LD is completely wrong and there has been a lot of investment into LD specialist nurses who work with families to help address these concerns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seasons said:

 

Perhaps a lack of understanding of the 'quality of life'? That being said, I'm pretty convinced that if that was ever challenged they'd immediately take this off as it would question their Hippocratic Oath. 

 

Just to highlight that putting a DNAR on someone because they have LD is completely wrong and there has been a lot of investment into LD specialist nurses who work with families to help address these concerns. 

 

I don’t disagree, my point is the current law is open to abuse, do you advocate withdrawing it because of its failures? 

 

Or just new legislation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lifetime fan said:

 

I don’t disagree, my point is the current law is open to abuse, do you advocate withdrawing it because of its failures? 

 

Or just new legislation? 

 

If you're trying to apply this context to euthanasia I think you're reaching slightly - but I get your point. 

 

What's the survival rate of CPR? Fewer than 10%? If there's less than 10% of that person surviving and the outcome being a poorer quality of life, is that within their best interests? You could argue the same for euthanasia which is why it's usually applied (in some countries) for terminal cases or where there is no better outcome for the patient. I think the difference is the applied intervention (CPR) vs. natural outcome. 

 

In the DNAR cases, I think it's about making those decisions more robust (multiple decisions from different medical practitioners) and understanding the malpractice to improve the rational for the existence of DNAR. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Seasons said:

 

If you're trying to apply this context to euthanasia I think you're reaching slightly - but I get your point. 

 

What's the survival rate of CPR? Fewer than 10%? If there's less than 10% of that person surviving and the outcome being a poorer quality of life, is that within their best interests? You could argue the same for euthanasia which is why it's usually applied (in some countries) for terminal cases or where there is no better outcome for the patient. I think the difference is the applied intervention (CPR) vs. natural outcome. 

 

In the DNAR cases, I think it's about making those decisions more robust (multiple decisions from different medical practitioners) and understanding the malpractice to improve the rational for the existence of DNAR. 

 

 

It isn’t a perfect comparison I agree, my point being there is no perfect legislation. 

 

Would you terminate current legislation because it isn't perfect? Or would you work with it? Amend it and improve it for the greater good of society? 

 

Why would you not have the same outlook on new legislation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Seasons said:

What's the survival rate of CPR? Fewer than 10%? If there's less than 10% of that person surviving and the outcome being a poorer quality of life, is that within their best interests? You could argue the same for euthanasia which is why it's usually applied (in some countries) for terminal cases or where there is no better outcome for the patient. I think the difference is the applied intervention (CPR) vs. natural outcome. 

 

In the DNAR cases, I think it's about making those decisions more robust (multiple decisions from different medical practitioners) and understanding the malpractice to improve the rational for the existence of DNAR. 

 

 

It’s been nearly 7 years since we did the DNAR so I wouldn’t remember the statistics. It’s a shocking percentage though I agree. 

 

I’ve worked with literally thousands of patients over 20 years with an LD (a few although not many with Down’s syndrome) and can’t think of a single one who should have had a DNAR status put on their medical file simply for having a diagnosis of LD. 

 

With other more complex medical conditions then yes, but just because they have a diagnosis of a LD? Never. 

 

Thats the crux of my point. 

 

Current legislation isn’t perfect, far fucking from it. But it was well intentioned and should be improved and advanced for the good of all. 

 

The same way legislation for assisted suicide should be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

 

It isn’t a perfect comparison I agree, my being there is no perfect legislation. 

 

Would you terminate current legislation because it isn't perfect? Or would you work with it? Amend it and I’m prove it for the greater good of society? 

 

Why would you not have the same outlook on new legislation? 

 

It's comparing two laws at two different points in two different circumstances in one particular country. 

 

For instance, in an ideal world, DNAR would work perfectly. It would be allow a natural end to a particular group of peoples lives knowing that any further medical intervention/survival would result in a worse quality of life. In a perfect world, euthanasia would work within similar contexts. 

 

As DNAR is already in play, I think the only way you'd move forward is to case review and improve the criteria and decision-making to reduce the events as you've described - as any serious case review works currently. The difference between DNAR and euthanasia is one is attempting to save the patient and one is attempting to kill the patient. We view CPR as a positive and any mistake in euthanasia is likely to be seen as murder/malpractice. Therefore, I'd prefer (and it's only an opinion) if the weight of the latter had higher conditions due to the decision overriding a natural state of events. 

 

I think I've made sense but if not let me reread it tomorrow, I've been up since 6am Monday morning so apologies if I'm talking bollocks at the moment. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...