He's feeling a little moist in the undies over the prospect of ending people's lives over "quality of life."
alp227 (16,491 posts)
Family of Down's patient sue hospital over DNR order
Source: The Guardian
An NHS hospital is being sued by a family who say doctors placed a "do not resuscitate" order on their relative, denying him potentially life-saving treatment, because he has Down's syndrome.
<clip>
dkf (28,904 posts)
1. Pneumonia, dementia, feeding tube...this poor guy is going to go through a lot more misery
When we went through this same exact process with my uncle we were told that he was at the stage where this would keep happening...continued bouts with pneumonia due to inability to swallow properly (even his own saliva). They also suggested a DNR because the resuscitation process is traumatic and can lead to broken ribs, so pain along with the very strong likelihood of more drastic impairment to his atrophied brain.
From my experience I think this is about the Dementia and the shutting down of the brain more than the Downs but I'm no expert.
Yeah! **** what the family and people want! What the hell do they think this is; a democracy?
azurnoir (19,695 posts)
2. smacks of eugenics IMO
and that goes beyond discrimination
harmonicon (10,092 posts)
3. How so?
Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:39 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
You think a guy who couldn't get out of bed, couldn't communicate with doctors, and needed a feeding tube to live had a good likelihood of reproducing?
harmonicon (10,092 posts)
5. I just don't know how simple any of this is.
Reading the article, the guy is actually alive and well - or as well as could be expected with his condition.
Apparently, the family was supposed to have a say in this, and that's part of the problem. Either they were unreachable at the time the order was put in place, or they weren't consulted. That said, I'm wary of giving people carte blanche over making decisions about a person's care who cannot make those decisions for themselves just because they are legal familial relations. If I were in that situation, I don't know if I'd rather my family or medical professionals make those sorts of calls.
These are complicated questions, but I think it's also worth noting that these orders were issued while this man was being cared for by the NHS. The family could have gone to private doctors and hospitals and avoided the NHS altogether, but they chose to trust NHS professionals to put in this fellow's feeding tube. Why not trust them in other medical matters?
"Unreachable"? WTF? Do you call once, not leave a message and then decide to snuff someone?
harmonicon (10,092 posts)
8. What is over the top about my post?
This person has no ability to tell doctors his wishes about this. In their opinion, his quality of life is/was such that, if further tragedy were to befall him, it would be better to not make him suffer through his myriad illnesses any longer. It's not as if this is a healthy man with DS. He's seriously ill in many other ways. I remember how difficult it was when my grandmother made the decision about a DNR order. If she hadn't had that capacity and the choice were up to me, I don't know what I would have done.
I trust doctors. If I were in a similar situation, I'd like to think that I could trust the medical professionals providing my care to make similarly hard decisions. To me this reads less like eugenics than Terri Shiavo pt. II.
muriel_volestrangler (60,674 posts)
13. Those definitions are about reproduction
and harmonicon's post was about the chances of them ever having children, which does seem extremely unlikely in their state (and the article tells us he is over 50; it would have to be an incredible recovery from whatever future event he would need resuscitation from to get to the point where he can have sex with someone, and consent to it). I don't think this is about anyone trying to stop the man having children. It's not 'eugenics'; you could try to argue it's 'euthanasia'.
IOW: semantics
harmonicon (10,092 posts)
12. It's not a question of who lives and who dies...
but of who lives and who dies after a point where "life" may not be worth living. These people were entrusted with his care. This is one decision they made about his care. The legal case is over whether or not they did everything required to ensure that they were the legally appropriate people to make these decisions.
I can only hope that if I were in such a terrible state that doctors would have the best intentions for my quality of life. I simply can't imagine a doctor in that position making a decision callously. If the doctor was not in a legal position to do so is now a matter for the courts, I guess.
While no doctor ever really decides who lives and who dies, I would be comfortable with letting NHS doctors make decisions about my healthcare. All of my experience with the NHS has led me to believe that their doctors are both qualified and caring.
If "quality of life" were the criteria for being allowed to live then the only people left on DU would be the moles.
harmonicon (10,092 posts)
16. No one here ever suggested killing anyone.
My grandmother asked not to be resuscitated. She didn't ask to be killed.
Here, for the record, I'll let you know, though everyone who knows me personally would know: if I'm ever so mentally incapacitated that I can't make decisions for myself and have a feeding tube, I don't want to be freakishly kept "alive" for the perverse pleasure of others should my body announce to the universe that it's death time.
I learned at an early age that my cousin with Down's Syndrome died because she was sick, not because Hitler or one of his surrogates had some grand eugenics plan.
Modern Democratic eugenicists aren't killing people over genetic purity, they're killing people in the name of budgetary constraints.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014228377It goes on like that for several more posts.
Any time anyone is that eager to consign people to their deaths you should probably keep them away from setting policy.
