Right to die

[texta]

A quadriplegic in WA has won the right to refuse nutrients in his feeding tube which means he's going to die.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/14/2656334.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/14/2656334.htm)

From a legal perspective the difference compared to euthanasia is that he's refusing medical treatment rather than deliberately taking something. It's generally accepted that people have the right to refuse medical treatment even where it will result in their death and the issue in this case was more about the application of some criminal laws that are exclusive to WA as well as providing insurance for the people involved.

Anyway, how do you feel about this case and do you think it's fair that there's a difference between refusing treatment (legal) and euthanasia (illegal)?

Discuss.

EDIT: Here's a link to the draft judgment:
http://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/publications/pdf/DraftJudgment.pdf

[Lazlow]

I really can't see a difference as the end result is the same.

[Araenel]

I'm always amused at groups like that "Right to Life" mob. Great work fighting for something we already have guys.

[Fenrir]

My grandfather started refusing medication some way into his treatment for, from memory, gangrene (long-term chimney-smoker). He'd had his foot amputated already, was nearly blind, etc, so his quality of life was going to be abysmal.
It's not my place to judge, at all - but I'd still have no objections, regardless. He didn't want to keep going, that's fair enough with me.

I'm not sure how this reflects on euthanasia, though.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

My grandfather started refusing medication some way into his treatment for, from memory, gangrene (long-term chimney-smoker). He'd had his foot amputated already, was nearly blind, etc, so his quality of life was going to be abysmal.
It's not my place to judge, at all - but I'd still have no objections, regardless. He didn't want to keep going, that's fair enough with me.

I'm not sure how this reflects on euthanasia, though.

It doesn't. The issue that was being debated wasn't whether they could kill him or not, it was the nursing home seeking guidance on whether they have a legal right to nurse him back to health after he expressed a desire not to be given treatment. While the end result may be the same as euthanasia, the way they got there is legally different.

I wonder if this means more people will come to WA to refuse treatment, now that we have a legal precedent for being allowed to die through refusal of treament. It's definately an option to those seeking euthanasia, and I don't think there's going to be an appeal against the ruling in the court, unless those Right To Life idiots decide to contest it.

[texta]

I wonder if this means more people will come to WA to refuse treatment, now that we have a legal precedent for being allowed to die through refusal of treament. It's definately an option to those seeking euthanasia, and I don't think there's going to be an appeal against the ruling in the court, unless those Right To Life idiots decide to contest it.I doubt it. The right to refuse medical treatment is accepted across Australia.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Apparently, feeding does.

[PrattP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the whole euthanasia thing justify suicide, or make it 'legal' too?

[Fenrir]

While the end result may be the same as euthanasia, the way they got there is legally different.
This seems to be the crux of it - we have a preoccupation with the "natural course". Killing a person is an action, whereas letting them die is inaction.

We've had hypothetical arguments about this sort of thing (the diverting a speeding train vs organ harvesting one), and they all come down to whether or not inaction constitutes an action, or some related question.

I wonder if this means more people will come to WA to refuse treatment, now that we have a legal precedent for being allowed to die through refusal of treament.
My grandfather lived and was treated in NSW.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

The big difference with this case is that most people wouldn't call feeding someone medical treatment, as opposed to refusing treatment for something like gangrene. I guess it could be by the fact that he was being fed through a tube is what is classifying this as medical.

[Fenrir]

Now that I think of it, this is an interesting precedent. Forced tube-feeding is within the repertoire of anorexia wards.

[Vindik8or]

Now that I think of it, this is an interesting precedent. Forced tube-feeding is within the repertoire of anorexia wards.

Except with the case of anorexia, it can be (and is) viewed as a mental condition so the patients can be committed and have those rights transferred to someone else (I'm fairly sure). I wonder, can this be said for people who want to die? It would take someone who wants to see them survive to see that they are committed, I suppose.

[texta]

The big difference with this case is that most people wouldn't call feeding someone medical treatment, as opposed to refusing treatment for something like gangrene. I guess it could be by the fact that he was being fed through a tube is what is classifying this as medical.He was "fed" through a tube surgically connected directly to his stomach. I don't think many people would consider that "Feeding".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the whole euthanasia thing justify suicide, or make it 'legal' too?Not really. Euthanasia is about other people ending actual physical suffering, while suicide is involves doing it to yourself and can be done for any reason.

This seems to be the crux of it - we have a preoccupation with the "natural course". Killing a person is an action, whereas letting them die is inaction.It depends on context too. Murder/manslaughter can be for gross negligence and most state criminal laws specifically include "actions or inactions likely to cause death etc".

It's only in a medical context that there is a legal distinction.


Now that I think of it, this is an interesting precedent. Forced tube-feeding is within the repertoire of anorexia wards.I don't think so. To be able to refuse treatment you have to be of sound mind. Anorexia = mental illness = not sound mind.

[Vindik8or]

So how does the arguing that you want to die from starvation demonstrate being of sound mind?

[AranchineD]

Don't see any difference but support it all the same.

So how does the arguing that you want to die from starvation demonstrate being of sound mind?

That's the whole argument with euthanasia in general, isn't it, how can someone be of sound mind if they want to off themselves, regardless of the circumstances?

[Ali G]

So how does the arguing that you want to die from starvation demonstrate being of sound mind?
In WA unsoundness of mind is defined as being in a state of mental impairment which causes the loss of either the capacity to understand what you are doing, or the capacity to control your actions, or the capacity to know that you ought not to do the act or make the omission.

Christian Rossiter doesn't seem to have lost any of those capacities due to a state of mental impairment, does he?

[texta]

So how does the arguing that you want to die from starvation demonstrate being of sound mind?I think that's a matter for a psychologist.

But here's what was said in the case:

...

The first is that a person of full age is assumed to be capable of having the mental capacity to consent to or refuse medical treatment. That presumption applies in this case but in any event, as I have mentioned, there is direct medical evidence which establishes to my satisfaction that Mr Rossiter has the mental capacity necessary to make an informed decision in respect of the future provision of treatment and, if provided with the necessary information, could do so with a full appreciation of the consequences of that decision.

[PrattP]

Not really. Euthanasia is about other people ending actual physical suffering, while suicide is involves doing it to yourself and can be done for any reason.

But suicide could be a way out of physical/mental suffering for a person too...

I dunno, it's hard. I just can't help but feel, if legalised, it's going to open the lid on a whole lot of other issues.

[Fenrir]

Except with the case of anorexia, it can be (and is) viewed as a mental condition so the patients can be committed and have those rights transferred to someone else (I'm fairly sure). I wonder, can this be said for people who want to die? It would take someone who wants to see them survive to see that they are committed, I suppose.
Was there a stealth-edit in there? I've got nothing to add.

He was "fed" through a tube surgically connected directly to his stomach. I don't think many people would consider that "Feeding".
I would.

It depends on context too. Murder/manslaughter can be for gross negligence and most state criminal laws specifically include "actions or inactions likely to cause death etc".

It's only in a medical context that there is a legal distinction.
So, why?

I don't think so. To be able to refuse treatment you have to be of sound mind. Anorexia = mental illness = not sound mind.
And some nutjob who doesn't want medical attention to tend to a serious ailment isn't mentally ill? (ignoring the "nutjob" quip, that'd be begging the question I guess >_>)

[Ali G]

And some nutjob who doesn't want medical attention to tend to a serious ailment isn't mentally ill? (ignoring the "nutjob" quip, that'd be begging the question I guess >_>)
The thing you have to see here is that there's a distinction between what the medical profession would call mental illness and what the law calls mental illness.

[Fenrir]

****ing social sciences.

[Dunkurtin]

TBH i see this being more akin to suicide than euthanasia. He's refusing to take something not having something new introduced to help him die. He made the decision, fought for the right to do it and is now not having the nutrients. It's his actions killing himself not someone helping him.

[sausage]

Another one of those "if it happens to you or someone you love then you are in favour of it" scenarios.

Anyone not in favour of it is either a religious crackpot nutjob or has yet to experience a life of pain and suffering.

[texta]

So, why?I haven't done much research but I suspect it's come out backwards as a result of protections against doctors. Doctors aren't normally allowed to treat you without your consent, so the logical conclusion of that is that you don't have to consent.


And some nutjob who doesn't want medical attention to tend to a serious ailment isn't mentally ill? (ignoring the "nutjob" quip, that'd be begging the question I guess >_>)I should note that the actual requirement to be of sound mind when making these decisions is debatable. In some cases courts have said that people can refuse medical treatment then that should be complied with irrespective of their state of mind. The WA criminal legislation influences this case (because it makes it a crime where the person isn't of sound mind) but at common law the right to refuse medical treatment is very strong.

If you want to know more about it all, then I'd really suggest you read the draft judgment that I put in the OP. It's actually pretty easy to read and discusses all of these things.

[Sytadel]

Most of this thread is beyond my expertise, but I don't feel that any modern psychological body has within its jurisdiction the right to say that "wanting to die" is associated with an unsound mind.

It could've only become a psychological issue if someone chose to have a very archaic and classical view of depression. That is to say, he probably was "clinically depressed" strictly speaking (i.e. enough boxes could be checked), and then they could go to say that because he was "depressed" he was of an unsound mind. This is the only way that psychological professionals could cockblock the case; but I'd be surprised and disappointed if that occured in this day and age. That view requires you to see depression as a disease independent of his circumstances, a depression that can be cured by treatment. Even modern psychiatry, which is ****ing backwards, would struggle to look at that man and go "yeah, we can make you feel better".

As such its really only an ethical/legal issue and the draft shows on p.62 that autonomy and self-determination are legal rights superceding any "obligation to live". The only involvement of psychological professionals was to judge whether or not he was capable of reasoning and understanding the consequences of his actions, which he clearly was.

[incompatible with life]

I haven't done much research but I suspect it's come out backwards as a result of protections against doctors. Doctors aren't normally allowed to treat you without your consent, so the logical conclusion of that is that you don't have to consent.
In theory it's more protection for patients. So that the doctors don't say, decide to sterilise you as well whilst you're anaesthetised but also that patients know what they're getting themselves into with an operation.


Anyone not in favour of it is either a religious crackpot nutjob or has yet to experience a life of pain and suffering.
Or they might appreciate that it's not so black and white. I do conceed that it probably does have its roots in the traditional catholic view that killing oneself is an act of defying God's will (though I do remember a theory that it was really more to stop followers from seeking crucifiction) and therefore abhorrent (or alternatively, existence would have been much more of a struggle say even 100 years ago, ergo a high priority made on keeping people alive).

The problem I see is that there are complex issues surrounding it, which can't be governed by one principle. In particular there's the matter of how we'd define when one would consider a certain situation as horrible enough to justify continued existence.

Granted, this could be helped somewhat by stipulating that it will only be applied in terminal cases (ie. they are likely to die soon anyway). But then it's somewhat self defeating if we then leave out all the other people who are in significant amounts of pain but not likely to actually die any time soon.

So then we're back to how bad things need to get to justify euthanasia. Pain is one thing, but would it be the *only* thing that is enough to justify euthanasia? What about say the person who values their independence above all else that gets into a severe car accident that leaves them a paraplegic?

I should note that those arguments are relatively irrelevant. What I'm predominantly getting at is that it's hard to proceed much further due to the inevitable slippery slope that it entails.


TBH i see this being more akin to suicide than euthanasia. He's refusing to take something not having something new introduced to help him die. He made the decision, fought for the right to do it and is now not having the nutrients. It's his actions killing himself not someone helping him.
Well one could very much argue that euthanasia is essentially suicide. just maybe a little less messy/painful.

And some nutjob who doesn't want medical attention to tend to a serious ailment isn't mentally ill?
Well there are many. For example, religious reasons (more typically jehova's witnesses), although that then opens up a whole other can of worms.
Another would be futility of treatment; for example, conditions requiring very invasive surgery where there is very little chance of success and high likelihood of suffering after the surgery.

[Dunkurtin]

Well there are many. For example, religious reasons (more typically jehova's witnesses), although that then opens up a whole other can of worms.


Having imaginary friends is considered mentally stable. >_>

[TAT]

2 points:

- We can euthanise our pets to end their suffering, but we won't do it for humans because... what, because of the stigma surrounding suicide since the term was first referenced in the Bible? (or before that?)

- A close friend works in Melbourne's largest ICU dealing with the sickest of sick patients and virtually every week she has a new story to tell about treatment that has gone on too long, or cases where ending treatment altogether would have been the 'kinder' option.

I believe she has even asked doctors why a particular treatment had been continued long after being beneficial to the patient, and on at least one occasion the doctor had no answer for her...

[texta]

protections against doctors.

In theory it's more protection for patients.

I don't get the difference.

[incompatible with life]

- We can euthanise our pets to end their suffering, but we won't do it for humans because... what, because of the stigma surrounding suicide since the term was first referenced in the Bible? (or before that?)
Bluntly, because animals are lesser beings that don't count as humans.

- A close friend works in Melbourne's largest ICU dealing with the sickest of sick patients and virtually every week she has a new story to tell about treatment that has gone on too long, or cases where ending treatment altogether would have been the 'kinder' option.

I believe she has even asked doctors why a particular treatment had been continued long after being beneficial to the patient, and on at least one occasion the doctor had no answer for her...
Well it's often at the insistence of the family, particularly if the patient is younger. Particularly given the influence of those very rare cases where the patient defies the odds and makes it through.



I don't get the difference.
Consent is more than ensuring against paternalism, it's also making sure that the patient fully understands what they're getting themselves into ie. they're warned of the various risks involved.

[TAT]

Bluntly, because animals are lesser beings that don't count as humans.
So you're telling me that you'd prefer to suffer physical and emotional trauma for years by being kept alive with the aid of an artificial lung, feeding tube, catheder and colostomy bag (most likely under sedation the entire time)

as opposed to

being euthanised, dying with dignity by your own hand, and preserving whatever quality of life you might have had?

Well it's often at the insistence of the family, particularly if the patient is younger. Particularly given the influence of those very rare cases where the patient defies the odds and makes it through.
I don't argue that sometimes incredible things can happen in the world of medicine, but the big point here is quality of life.

[texta]

Consent is more than ensuring against paternalism, it's also making sure that the patient fully understands what they're getting themselves into ie. they're warned of the various risks involved.Yeah, I'm 100% aware what consent involves.

[Vindik8or]

So you're telling me that you'd prefer to suffer physical and emotional trauma for years by being kept alive with the aid of an artificial lung, feeding tube, catheder and colostomy bag (most likely under sedation the entire time)

Having not actually experienced this, I would say a provisional 'yes'. I'd rather be in agony and alive with hope than not.

being euthanised, dying with dignity by your own hand, and preserving whatever quality of life you might have had?


I don't argue that sometimes incredible things can happen in the world of medicine, but the big point here is quality of life.

Mate, there is no dignity in death. It is an ugly, belittling, and atrocious failing of your entire body to sustain itself.

Death completely lacks any quality of life, so I don't know where you're going with that.

[texta]

Mate, there is no dignity in death. It is an ugly, belittling, and atrocious failing of your entire body to sustain itself.

Death completely lacks any quality of life, so I don't know where you're going with that.I disagree and not just because of my partner's story about the guy's cat eating his eyes.

Or perhaps: there's no dignity in death but the last few years of someone's life can even less dignified.

[Gilder]

So you're telling me that you'd prefer to suffer physical and emotional trauma for years by being kept alive with the aid of an artificial lung, feeding tube, catheder and colostomy bag (most likely under sedation the entire time)

as opposed to

being euthanised, dying with dignity by your own hand, and preserving whatever quality of life you might have had?


That is a completely different issue to your comparison of animal euthenasia to human. There are good arguments for euthenaisa, the animal argument isn't one of them.

[Dunkurtin]

Sanctity of life only extends to humans not the entirety of life?


Also Vin, I'm pretty sure TAT doesn't mean dignity after actually dying but rather at the time of death and the moments before that. There's definitely more dignity in being aware of your surroundings and still capable of communication rather than just an oblivious drooling vegetable.

[incompatible with life]

So you're telling me that you'd prefer to suffer physical and emotional trauma for years by being kept alive with the aid of an artificial lung, feeding tube, catheder and colostomy bag (most likely under sedation the entire time)

as opposed to

being euthanised, dying with dignity by your own hand, and preserving whatever quality of life you might have had?
Okay, a few technical points aside (such as how does one suffer under sedation and how does one preserve quality of life by ending it?), the problem as I said earlier is that of the slippery slope. Or put another way, where do you draw the line?

For example, - do the following 'deserve' euthanasia:
1) Person A who becomes a quadriplegic after a car accident
2) Person B who has a strong family history of dementia (and for arguments sake, will develop it).
3) Person C who has severe arthritis and needs joint replacement but is unable to go for surgery.

The point I make is that it's all well and good to make an argument based in empathy but such arguments tend not to stand up too well to counter arguments as they inevitably attract a slippery slope scenario.

This thread demonstrates that quite well. Initially it was meant to be about relieving suffering, now we've drifted onto quality of life.

[Gilder]

Sanctity of life only extends to humans not the entirety of life?

No I'm saying animals can't be compared to humans. There are much more complex issues with human euthenasia.

[incompatible with life]

Sanctity of life only extends to humans not the entirety of life?
Ýes. Yes it does.
Unless you're a vegan but even then all you're doing is drawing another artificial distinction (but perhaps left for a discussion for another occasion).

Assuming this is drawing back to the "but we do it to animals" argument, we also use animals as slaves and a food source. Unfortunately these are somewhat frowned upon these days when applied to humans.

[Fenrir]

Ý
I'm reminded of an FML where someone spent half an hour scratching their screen, trying to remove a speck of crap which turned out to be a part of the web page being displayed. I nearly did this. **** you.

[incompatible with life]

I'm reminded of an FML where someone spent half an hour scratching their screen, trying to remove a speck of crap which turned out to be a part of the web page being displayed. I nearly did this. **** you.

Ýeah, blame Vista and the way it puts accents on stuff if you press the ' button and don't press space.

Óf course thanks for pointing that out and making my evening that little bit more amusing.

[Fenrir]

...it does? That's never happened for me, ever.

[Dunkurtin]

Y'y'y'y'y'y'y' any accents there?

[Ryan Hayward]

Wouldn't starving yourself to death be quite horrible to go through?
How is that a dignified death? I would support morphine overdose but I think its a sad country we live in where the only way a person suffering greatly can go out is by a slow process of starvation. God, I don't think I could last 6 hours without something to eat, I would be clawing for food.

[Dunkurtin]

I assume they will have him pretty heavily sedated during his last hours/days.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

I'm not sure they would, because that could probably be classed as helping someone to die, which is still illegal. The only thing they can do is stop treatment when the patient requests it.

[texta]

...it does? That's never happened for me, ever.It used to happen on my gf's laptop because she set the language to Italian or something. It was tres annoying.

I'm not sure they would, because that could probably be classed as helping someone to die, which is still illegal. The only thing they can do is stop treatment when the patient requests it.If you read the actual case the Judge discusses this very issue and rules that it would be okay to provide pain relief.

[incompatible with life]

I'm not sure they would, because that could probably be classed as helping someone to die, which is still illegal. The only thing they can do is stop treatment when the patient requests it.
No, as long as the intent was to relieve pain and not to stop breathing.

Wouldn't starving yourself to death be quite horrible to go through?
How is that a dignified death?
Well the point is that the patient is refusing 'medical treatment' not undergoing euthanasia. Refusing medical treatment doesn't tend to have dignifed results.

[texta]

Wouldn't starving yourself to death be quite horrible to go through?
How is that a dignified death? I would support morphine overdose but I think its a sad country we live in where the only way a person suffering greatly can go out is by a slow process of starvation. God, I don't think I could last 6 hours without something to eat, I would be clawing for food.
Not necessarily and certainly not with medical support. And I think you have to weigh up "dignified" against the person's current situation rather than against a healthy normal person.

Here's an article on the subject:

Right to starve death 'could be painless'

A palliative care group says a Perth quadriplegic man could have a relatively painless death if he chose to stop being fed.

On Friday, Western Australia's Chief Justice found quadriplegic 49-year-old Christian Rossiter had the right to refuse to be fed via a tube in his stomach at a Perth nursing home.

The home took the case to court after Mr Rossiter told staff repeatedly that he wanted to die.

Palliative Care WA president Scott Blackwell says it would probably take Mr Rossiter about two weeks to starve to death.

"He would become sleepy and then more difficult to arouse and then go into a coma and die," he said.

"There may be some symptoms that come along, not usually painful but if pain arose that could be dealt with."

Mr Blackwell says staff could help Mr Rossiter deal with symptoms associated with starvation.

"[It's] not usually likely to cause nausea and those symptoms, but they could be controlled, so the symptoms that are likely to be there could be controlled," he said.

"He could become anxious and agitated along the way and that could be controlled as well."

Mr Rossiter says he is happy with the court's landmark ruling, but he says he could still be persuaded not to end his life.

"I'm asking for further advice from an experienced palliative care doctor," he said.

"After I speak to a medical professional - he could persuade me. I have to seek advice. There's a possibility that I could still be persuaded [to accept food]."

The Chief Justice says he made his decision based on proof that Mr Rossiter was of sound mind, and as long as Mr Rossiter understood the implications of his actions.

[TAT]

Having not actually experienced this, I would say a provisional 'yes'. I'd rather be in agony and alive with hope than not.
I think you might have misunderstood what I was getting at.

If you are ever in the situation I described (being kept alive by a bevy of machines in an ICU ward), your chance of survival is miniscule and the longer you stay in a sedated state like that the smaller that already-small chance of survival becomes.

Should you be kept alive for as long as possible "just in case" and run the risk of something else going wrong or a potential organ/system failure; or are you better off having those machines and supports taken away one by one?

I'd just note that my hypothetical is not the same as a coma, nor is it even similar to an induced coma.

Also Vin, I'm pretty sure TAT doesn't mean dignity after actually dying but rather at the time of death and the moments before that. There's definitely more dignity in being aware of your surroundings and still capable of communication rather than just an oblivious drooling vegetable.
Exactly.

Okay, a few technical points aside (such as how does one suffer under sedation and how does one preserve quality of life by ending it?), the problem as I said earlier is that of the slippery slope. Or put another way, where do you draw the line?

For example, - do the following 'deserve' euthanasia:
1) Person A who becomes a quadriplegic after a car accident
2) Person B who has a strong family history of dementia (and for arguments sake, will develop it).
3) Person C who has severe arthritis and needs joint replacement but is unable to go for surgery.
That (drawing the line) is sort of what I'm getting at, and in all of your examples, there is no need for euthanasia.

Person A would probably be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life, but can still make a go of life.

Person B will most likely get to the stage where they're at a nursing home with a high level of careand while no-one wants to see a loved one end up in such a way, the person in question doesn't know any better - in this case euthanasia will only help ease the emotional suffering of the family.

Person C still has several avenues of treatment that do not include surgery - even though it may be the best option.

No I'm saying animals can't be compared to humans. There are much more complex issues with human euthenasia.
There can be, and I acknowledge that, but there is a reason we 'pull the plug' on hospital patients who, for one reason or another, end up brain dead.

[Fenrir]

It used to happen on my gf's laptop because she set the language to Italian or something. It was tres annoying.
I'm not a language buff, but isn't "tres" French? >_>

[Vindik8or]

I'm not a language buff, but isn't "tres" French? >_>

Yes it is, it means 'very'.

I think you might have misunderstood what I was getting at.

If you are ever in the situation I described (being kept alive by a bevy of machines in an ICU ward), your chance of survival is miniscule and the longer you stay in a sedated state like that the smaller that already-small chance of survival becomes.

Should you be kept alive for as long as possible "just in case" and run the risk of something else going wrong or a potential organ/system failure; or are you better off having those machines and supports taken away one by one?

I'd just note that my hypothetical is not the same as a coma, nor is it even similar to an induced coma.
I still don't see what you're getting at. If I'm in some mysterious hypothetical medical situation of your choosing and I am still alive (brain can function) then I would like to remain alive, thankyouverymuch.

There can be, and I acknowledge that, but there is a reason we 'pull the plug' on hospital patients who, for one reason or another, end up brain dead.
Brain death on the other hand is death.

[Dunkurtin]

Your every living moment is agony yet you are only lucid when unsedated. Do you choose the constant agony which could actually end up killing you, just so your brain functions, or to be sedated into a state equivalent to being brain dead?

[incompatible with life]

Should you be kept alive for as long as possible "just in case" and run the risk of something else going wrong or a potential organ/system failure; or are you better off having those machines and supports taken away one by one?

I'd just note that my hypothetical is not the same as a coma, nor is it even similar to an induced coma.
Except that what you are talking about is withdrawal of treatment due to futility. That has nothing to do with euthanasia.

I believe we are referring to an active process of ending the life of somebody in a terminal condition and suffering as a consequence of it.

Certainly by all means continue on, but I would like to makethe distinction to avoid confusion.

I still don't see what you're getting at. If I'm in some mysterious hypothetical medical situation of your choosing and I am still alive (brain can function) then I would like to remain alive, thankyouverymuch.
Out of curiosity, even if you were conscious but lost all functions - ie. trapped inside your body?

[Fenrir]

Yes it is, it means 'very'.
Knew that much, I'd've thought an Italian term would be ideal, though.

You're every living moment is agony yet you are only lucid when unsedated.
Please do not make this mistake ever again.

Do you choose the constant agony which could actually end up killing you, just so your brain functions, or to be sedated into a state equivalent to being brain dead?
ie. death?

[TAT]

I still don't see what you're getting at. If I'm in some mysterious hypothetical medical situation of your choosing and I am still alive (brain can function) then I would like to remain alive, thankyouverymuch.
What I was trying to do was offer a scenario where euthanasia would be the preferred option. Obviously I failed.

Just a question, though: how long do we leave you under sedation with the breathing, feeding, piss & shit tubes keeping you alive? Assuming that's the only way your body can continue living.

Except that what you are talking about is withdrawal of treatment due to futility. That has nothing to do with euthanasia.
I believe that it has everything to do with euthanasia.

Let's say I'm in my Vin scenario, but I'm awake. What then? You would need my consent for any and all decisions regarding my personal welfare, therefore it would be left up to me to decide which treatments to accept and refuse. If I chose to refuse the treatments that were directly keeping me alive (feeding or breathing tubes), haven't I made the decision that euthanasia is what's in my best interests?

To me, a life lived under sedation and supported by machines indefinitely is worse than having no life at all, which brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier about quality of life. Rossiter has made a decision based on what he knows about his current quality of life and outlook, and even then he says that he will be open to continued referral and medical advice in the event of positive change.

[Vindik8or]

Until my brain stops functioning. Shit you guys are pussies about suffering, how far down the slippery-sloap would you actually give up?

[AranchineD]

Vin, isn't it obvious, some of us actually have a reputation and dignity to hold up! I know you can't understand that, but it is true!

[incompatible with life]

I believe that it has everything to do with euthanasia.
Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but there is a very important distinction. Euthanasia is a decision to actively end a life. Withdrawal of treatment by definition is not done with intent to end a life (or at least on the record it's not).

Granted, you do end up with the same result. That doesn't mean though that the two are equivalent. Like if I murder someone, it is not considered the same as say, accidentally killing someone.

Let's say I'm in my Vin scenario, but I'm awake. What then? You would need my consent for any and all decisions regarding my personal welfare, therefore it would be left up to me to decide which treatments to accept and refuse. If I chose to refuse the treatments that were directly keeping me alive (feeding or breathing tubes), haven't I made the decision that euthanasia is what's in my best interests?
Except that consent can be given by next of kin in the event a particular person is incapable of doing so. So just remember to tell your parents and you'll be in good stead.

That point aside, if a decision is made to withdraw treatment, the important distinction is that it's not choosing death. It's making a decision not to continue with a treatment as it either goes against a personal belief or is futile. Death is the unfortunate consequence of withdrawing treatment.

For example, my house is on fire. By the time I pull out the extinguisher it's much too large to put out. I make the decision to stop trying to put the fire out. I am not making the decision to set my house on fire.

To me, a life lived under sedation and supported by machines indefinitely is worse than having no life at all, which brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier about quality of life.
How does one have poor quality of life if one is sedated? You're not exactly conscious enough to appreciate how shite your situation is.

On a petty note - indefinitely worse? I don't suppose you were looking for infinitely?

[Gilder]

Er you may want to read that sentence again, it makes sense.

[incompatible with life]

Er you may want to read that sentence again, it makes sense.
lol. Yes, yes it does.

Don't mind me I'll just quietly pop back into my corner now