Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just know that none of anything in this thread will ever come back to haunt anybody in the inevitable abortion debate that will surface once again before this election is over.

The truth is that even Peregrine is okay with killing people in stable conditions and has made that perfectly clear in the past, even in this very thread.

But in the end, we all have our stance on what we consider acceptable and unacceptable killings and our own criteria where we draw the line. Brain function? Brain development? How long do we support other organs shutting down? Organ donation? Death Penalty? Abortion? War? Self Defense?

Ethically and legally, killing has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person. Ethically and legally, withdrawing life support has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person.

This is nothing that will be settled on an internet board, and I don't think any of us will ever convince anybody else that we are right. So other than a "this is what I think" there won't be much happening here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Edit: Of note, the feeding tube patient wasn't brain dead either, just terminal cancer.

Were they conscious or plausibly capable of regaining consciousness before dying?

I don't know what you've been through, Peregrine, so I apologise if you know this from experience, but there's consciousness and consciousness. The combination of drugs and the body's own response to injury can make you able to be conscious and even to carry on a conversation to some extent without being able to think clearly. You can even be able to be bored while not being able to think well enough to do anything about it.

I guess what I'm saying is "consciousness" isn't an indicator in itself of any kind of quality of life. You aren't necessarily able to even have an inner life of contemplation or anything, because you can't always think that clearly.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
That's scary! I had an operation under general anaesthetic at the Mercy once and that sounds pretty religious. What if there'd been an accident and I'd been trapped there at the whims of some ethics panel, the head of whom was a mad priest chanting "KILL THE ATHEIST! KILL THE ATHEIST!"??!

I know we were all standing there ready to pull the plug and pop the bubbly.

I'm sure there's so much more to this story than this story thats its pathetic, and designed for a cheap shot.

This sounds like one of those grey area stories. Too many news sites will only report one side of the story for better storyline/controversy so I can't tell whats really the whole story on the matter. I doubt men in black hoods walked in and pulled his life support as his family fought against them or anything equally as silly. Im sure there is more to the decision making process perhaps his illness progression, pain, chances of future survival regardless of continues care ect.

Told you the NHS Death Panel would catch on.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
This sounds like one of those grey area stories. Too many news sites will only report one side of the story for better storyline/controversy so I can't tell whats really the whole story on the matter. I doubt men in black hoods walked in and pulled his life support as his family fought against them or anything equally as silly. I

That would be kind of a kewl story though.

 Frazzled wrote:
That would be kind of a kewl story though.

Could make an interesting Twilight zone episode.

 Witzkatz wrote:
The article states that the patient was 'stable' to a certain degree, but it might also have been relevant under what kind of medication he was stable. If his cardiovascular system was only working because there was a continuous i.v. influx of catecholamines that were not reduceable without his blood pressure dropping to nowhere, that could be described as stable - for a while. It's surely not stable in terms of "He can live months and years like this". We also do not know in how much pain he was - if he was stable under high doses of morphine or other opiates, that is also something that is very difficult to continue for months and years without severe complications.

Metastasized pancreatic cancer is a damn sure death sentence, as Ouze has mentioned before, I think. However, I agree that there seems to be information missing about what exactly caused the ethics board to recommend shutting off life support at THIS point and not simply let the cancer take him in its own time. The exact reason for might not be disclosed due to patient confidentiality, perhaps? Still, I'd like to know.

If he'd signed some form saying he didn't want heroic measures taken to keep him alive, then the family was acting against his wished. d would be the most likely here to have experience with that kind of action.

 d-usa wrote:
I just know that none of anything in this thread will ever come back to haunt anybody in the inevitable abortion debate that will surface once again before this election is over.

The truth is that even Peregrine is okay with killing people in stable conditions and has made that perfectly clear in the past, even in this very thread.

But in the end, we all have our stance on what we consider acceptable and unacceptable killings and our own criteria where we draw the line. Brain function? Brain development? How long do we support other organs shutting down? Organ donation? Death Penalty? Abortion? War? Self Defense?

Ethically and legally, killing has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person. Ethically and legally, withdrawing life support has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person.

This is nothing that will be settled on an internet board, and I don't think any of us will ever convince anybody else that we are right. So other than a "this is what I think" there won't be much happening here.

exalted for speaking some complex truths.

It's certainly possible that a committee made a bad decision. It can happen, even in life or death cases. I find it extremely unlikely that a medical committee would authorize removing care from a conscious person. I'm not going to go with a few seconds of video over the people that have access to reams of medical records, nursing notes, etc.

 d-usa wrote:
There is probably a legal difference between "killing someone" and "stop keeping them alive".

In the eyes of the law, that's the case at least.

I agree with d-usa.

Apocalypse is nigh.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You don't need luck arguing the technicality when there is a law that was created for exactly that purpose.

Ethically speaking it's still murder, even if you pass a law approving it.

Or mercy killing, even if you don't pass a law approving it, depending on how you look at things.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Edit: Of note, the feeding tube patient wasn't brain dead either, just terminal cancer.

Were they conscious or plausibly capable of regaining consciousness before dying?

I don't know what you've been through, Peregrine, so I apologise if you know this from experience, but there's consciousness and consciousness. The combination of drugs and the body's own response to injury can make you able to be conscious and even to carry on a conversation to some extent without being able to think clearly. You can even be able to be bored while not being able to think well enough to do anything about it.

I guess what I'm saying is "consciousness" isn't an indicator in itself of any kind of quality of life. You aren't necessarily able to even have an inner life of contemplation or anything, because you can't always think that clearly.

Mmm. Someone with advanced alzheimers is still conscious. They can also have none of their original personality or sense of self left and be completely unable to look after themselves in the most basic way, whilst still being conscious.

Consciousness is not a very effective sign of good quality of life or of someone's medical problems.

 d-usa wrote:
I just know that none of anything in this thread will ever come back to haunt anybody in the inevitable abortion debate that will surface once again before this election is over.

The truth is that even Peregrine is okay with killing people in stable conditions and has made that perfectly clear in the past, even in this very thread.

But in the end, we all have our stance on what we consider acceptable and unacceptable killings and our own criteria where we draw the line. Brain function? Brain development? How long do we support other organs shutting down? Organ donation? Death Penalty? Abortion? War? Self Defense?

Ethically and legally, killing has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person. Ethically and legally, withdrawing life support has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person.

This is nothing that will be settled on an internet board, and I don't think any of us will ever convince anybody else that we are right. So other than a "this is what I think" there won't be much happening here.

I'm in your camp on this one.

... it should be doubly pointed out that the ethics committee of the hospital is not part of the ACA, not affiliated with the ACA, not mandated by the ACA, and has been in place *far* longer than Obama has been in office.

 Polonius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I just know that none of anything in this thread will ever come back to haunt anybody in the inevitable abortion debate that will surface once again before this election is over.

The truth is that even Peregrine is okay with killing people in stable conditions and has made that perfectly clear in the past, even in this very thread.

But in the end, we all have our stance on what we consider acceptable and unacceptable killings and our own criteria where we draw the line. Brain function? Brain development? How long do we support other organs shutting down? Organ donation? Death Penalty? Abortion? War? Self Defense?

Ethically and legally, killing has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person. Ethically and legally, withdrawing life support has always been okay in some situations. And those situations will be different from person to person.

This is nothing that will be settled on an internet board, and I don't think any of us will ever convince anybody else that we are right. So other than a "this is what I think" there won't be much happening here.

exalted for speaking some complex truths.

It's certainly possible that a committee made a bad decision. It can happen, even in life or death cases. I find it extremely unlikely that a medical committee would authorize removing care from a conscious person. I'm not going to go with a few seconds of video over the people that have access to reams of medical records, nursing notes, etc.

Indeed, I'm going to remember that "compelling" video of Terri Shiavo appearing to follow a balloon for a second with her eyes as "proof" she was not in a persistent vegetative state and being the basis of the grossest, most intrusive government overreach in my history. (spoiler - she was in fact brain dead).


Which, by the way, I bet a certain small-government Candidate! hopes you don't remember or start talking about.