Wirehead Studios

http://www.lifenews.com/bio244.html (http://www.lifenews.com/bio244.html)

"Be good to the children and old people first.  Hand them a drink, they're dying of thirst" - Manowar, "Guyana and the Cult of the Damned".

Anyone for Kool-Aid?

If ever I become so incapacitated that I am unable to care for myself. For the love of God, put me under.

ok, if im in a state where I need this kind of care if I can answer ask me if I can't and never will ever be able to answer put me under but do not starve me or dehydrate me. that is crule.(just because I can't answer doesn't mean I'm not experienceing it)

That's fine - IF it's your decision.  The problem here is that some DOCTOR can just arbitrarily decide "You're not fit to live, so it's time to die whether you like it or not."  It's not a mercy killing when it's against your will.  It's murder.

Since when did the UK ever consider itself part of Europe, they're on your side remember? or does the Coalition status only apply to the good stuff not the bad?

Granted I don't really see why anyone would want to be kept alive by a machine if they are in a vegitative state, although they should have the choice if they like. I wouldn't be overly shocked to hear outrage from a Pro-Life website

For gods sake do not let me outlive my wits.

This is wack ass.  People have the right to choose whether they live on in a vegetative state.  Their appointed representative has the right to decide.  The doctors do not.
Living will people, get with it.

Then what would you all say about the woman in florida who had the legislature decide that she was to be kept alive when her husband said she didn't want to? I think we discussed that topic earlier here. Isn't the whole issue of this, the fact that relatives cannot decide on what the individual in question wanted? or agree for that matter, isn't that's why it goes to medical committees? How else do you plan to resolve such disputes? Blindly choose life irregardless of the patients actual wishes? That's just as bad blindly choosing death.. If any of you have a better idea on how to solve this problem, lets hear it, but I think the medical committee should be able to interview your relatives and decide what your intentions were since obviously your relatives aren't knowledgable enough to understand what you wanted.

There's already a tool in place for this very situation which I already mentioned in my last post.

LIVING WILL.

It's in your best intrest to make one people.  It's legally binding and absolves your family from some tough decisions.  If that woman in Florida had one, there would not be any question as to what she would have wanted.

Such is not living, it's simply existing. Woe are the ones who cling to such mortal coils...

This is used in a situation where there is no living will and there is a dispute between family members as to what to do with you.

Then why on Earth would a medical committee be involved?  Can you imagine if an HMO was involved with that?  


No, this shouldn't be decided by a committee - it's up to the family.  If they have a big legal battle over it, well, whatever.  At least you can be reasonably sure that they have the individuals best intrests in mind even if they don't agree on what it is.
But never a committee like that.  The example given in that linked article is exactly the reason why.

If I'm ever like him, they should not only shut off my food supply, they should shoot me with a large-caliber pistol.

If they don't kill me, I'll do it myself, and they will NOT be able to stop me.:P

So you are putting it in the hands of judges and lawyers rather than doctors? Judges and Lawyers don't have to take a hippocratic oath. As much as I am cynical about doctors going to a judge is a step down not up.

No, you're not even reading my reply.  I'm leaving it in the hands of the family and/or legal representative of said individual.  Sometimes that is determined by court.

At any rate, I don't think something like that could ever happen in America.  There are already laws to ensure that a person will receive at least stabilizing treatment regardless of ability to pay.  These laws are pretty deep and would take a massive movement to repeal.

You are correct, I misread something there, my apologies

My question is what the hell happened to the hipocratic oath in the UK?

Hopefully, the linked example was just an aberation.  I can't believe a Doctor would do that.  Perhaps the family looked poor (not profitable)?  I'm not certain how the medical system works in the UK...

I could always find something about this at a non pro-life website, it might shed a bit more light on it. Although give me til tuesday since papers are draining

Aparantly Michigan already has futile care

Well, that is kinda disturbing, but hopefully if your wishes are known pre-crisis, the doctor would respect them.  Definetly something to know about before hand though - if your Doctor refuses to honor your wish to prolong your life, time for a new doctor.

The case for Terri Schiavo is not as simple as that Devlar.  I know a bit of background about this case, and a good friend of mine has been following it for a decade now.  There is evidence that the husband physically abused Terri and should actually be charged with attempted murder, but the doctor currently in his employment has done his best to bury the medical facts.  There's a lot more to it than even that.  If you want to learn more about this case then I invite you to visit http://www.terrisfight.org (http://www.terrisfight.org) and see what the Schindler family has been going through and just what kind of man Mr. Schiavo really is.  It's not as simple as the government trampling on someone's legal rights here.  In this case it's just the opposite.  It's an attempt to STOP a precedent from being set like in the UK and PROTECT the rights of someone who in this case cannot fight for herself.  Law in the US tends to be set two ways - legislation, and legal precedent determined by court cases.  Basically if Terri loses this fight then there is legal precedent to pull the plug on tens of thousands of people in cases where the will of the person is not so clear.

As for the hippocratic oath, it's about as good as any promise made when large sums of money are at stake.  Doctors are businessmen, and they are in business to make money, just like any other businessman.  Some care about their patients, some do not.  You'd be better off trusting your health to a veterinarian.  They tend to be more competant and compassionate in this day, something I'm quite grateful for.

Well that does change my opinion on it, even if it is a website for her and I'm well aware that they are skewing the bias toward them.

What I find problematic in all of this is that when you have these types of disputes you get one side of greaving family member who are desparately clinging to the life of their family member and then you get the spouse who wants to let them go (irregardless of which one has their best wishes in mind, although I would usually side with the spouse since you tend to live in the same house as them, and opinions change, although the Terri Schavio case tends to have some extra variables). The problem with these situations is that people automatically demonize the those who want to let the relative die, even if that is actually the injured person's view. If a person wants to die they should have the right to that choice.

The only real problem with all of this that I can see is Triage. Its kind of like Oobey's trainyard killing example.
There is 1 magical life saving machine in the hospital, currently a long term patient who has a 1 in 1000 chance of recovery has been on this machine for the past month, now a new patient comes in who has a 90 in 100 chance of survival when being hooked up to this machine.
Does a doctor not have an ethical reponsibility to save a person who he is sure he can save with this treatment?