Baroness Warnock's View On People With Dementia.

[Chinahand]

Skrappey wouldn't have the choice, but why take that choice away from Skrappey's dad - in the form of a living will or whatever in the event he is incapacitated/succumbs to demential.

 

And I do feel that one of the reasons I would want such a living will is due to the burden I would be putting on my family - if I was aware of what my incapacity was doing I would be in great distress and would wish to take action to end that distress.

 

I don't think that is irrational or unconcionable - I think it is a very human response. The only reason I would not be suffering is because the parts of the brain relevent to this have been destroyed - I do not believe that should be viewed as paliative medicine!

[Skeddan]

Skrappey wouldn't have the choice, but why take that choice away from Skrappey's dad - in the form of a living will or whatever in the event he is incapacitated/succumbs to demential.

 

And I do feel that one of the reasons I would want such a living will is due to the burden I would be putting on my family - if I was aware of what my incapacity was doing I would be in great distress and would wish to take action to end that distress.

 

I don't think that is irrational or unconcionable - I think it is a very human response. The only reason I would not be suffering is because the parts of the brain relevent to this have been destroyed - I do not believe that should be viewed as paliative medicine!

It's worth noting that this is essentially Warnock's position - though press like Daily Wail misrepresent it and blow out of all proportions so as to exploit it for sensationalism and to use as vehicle for their own brand of shallow high-handed moral outrage.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But I am more concerned with the people Warnock mentioned, who are compos mentis but in pain, and for whom life holds no point or pleasure or hope. Like you, I feel that the practical difficulties of deciding whether somebody in such a case should be helped to die are considerable. I don't know the answers, but, as I said, I would welcome a rational debate (generally, not just in this forum).

 

S

 

Even if the person is just in constant pain, I do not think that anyone other than the person should be able to make a decision as to whether that person lives or not. It is the individuals decision. The only role that family, friends, doctors, etc. should take is to ensure that it is what they really want and maybe to even try and convince. But to tell that person that they must carry on when it is not what they want is surely very cruel.

[keyboarder]

Skrappey wouldn't have the choice, but why take that choice away from Skrappey's dad - in the form of a living will or whatever in the event he is incapacitated/succumbs to demential.

 

And what would happen should 'Skrappey's dad' change his mind post incapacitation/succumbing to dementia? After all, it's very difficult to accurately judge a situation until one actually experiences it. One might even be aware of the experience of the last words one will ever hear one's offspring make................... "Fuck it, throw the switch Doc, no point prolonging it." Nice send off, lol,lol... ;;

 

I do feel that one of the reasons I would want such a living will is due to the burden I would be putting on my family - if I was aware of what my incapacity was doing I would be in great distress and would wish to take action to end that distress.

 

I don't think that is irrational or unconcionable - I think it is a very human response. The only reason I would not be suffering is because the parts of the brain relevent to this have been destroyed - I do not believe that should be viewed as paliative medicine!

 

Again, very tricky to judge whether there really would be no quality of life worth hanging on for. Obviously incapacity wouldn't appeal to anyone in advance but who knows........

[Skeddan]

But to tell that person that they must carry on when it is not what they want is surely very cruel.

That comment made me think... In some circumstances it is important to do this (e.g. survival at sea or in desert where 'giving up' and losing the will to live is fatal, even where one might otherwise have survived). Perhaps making it too easy to give up even if a person is in pain may mean that they don't try to overcome their illness - and choose to just slip away instead. As I understand it, doctors do give morphine and effective euthanisia where really warranted - and keeping the system as it is may be the best thing.

 

There's an Ambrose Bierce short story about the American civil war - about a soldier who commits a mercy killing on his best friend who he finds in terrible pain begging to be put out of his misery with his torso ripped open and his intestines hanging out (or something gory like that). When the body is seen by the doctor he remarks that such wounds though they look horrific are very survivable, and but for the bullet in the soldier's head, his friend might well have lived.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But to tell that person that they must carry on when it is not what they want is surely very cruel.

That comment made me think... In some circumstances it is important to do this (e.g. survival at sea or in desert where 'giving up' and losing the will to live is fatal, even where one might otherwise have survived). Perhaps making it too easy to give up even if a person is in pain may mean that they don't try to overcome their illness - and choose to just slip away instead. As I understand it, doctors do give morphine and effective euthanisia where really warranted - and keeping the system as it is may be the best thing.

 

There's an Ambrose Bierce short story about the American civil war - about a soldier who commits a mercy killing on his best friend who he finds in terrible pain begging to be put out of his misery with his torso ripped open and his intestines hanging out (or something gory like that). When the body is seen by the doctor he remarks that such wounds though they look horrific are very survivable, and but for the bullet in the soldier's head, his friend might well have lived.

 

I agree. I was only thinking in terms of people in with an illness which was causing constant pain and no longer wished to go on.

[manshimajin]

There are many situations in which the individual can make rational decisions about whether to continue to live or request euthanasia. Unfortunately dementia is not one in its more advanced stages. So the decision would have to be made by family members (vested interest issues?) or by doctors (vested health cost issues?). Personally I would not want to carry on if my quality of life had gone and if I was a burden but I just feel a wee bit uncomfortable about others making that decision on my behalf. And how does this relate to children born with lifetime disorders? Would the Baroness suggest the same treatment be considered for them?

 

The other thing is that there do seem to be some significant breakthroughs beginning to happen in the treatment of dementia in its various forms so hopefully the scenario that Baroness Warnock paints as a philosopher will not occur as a result of scientific advances.

[Sebrof]

But I am more concerned with the people Warnock mentioned, who are compos mentis but in pain, and for whom life holds no point or pleasure or hope. Like you, I feel that the practical difficulties of deciding whether somebody in such a case should be helped to die are considerable. I don't know the answers, but, as I said, I would welcome a rational debate (generally, not just in this forum).

 

S

 

Even if the person is just in constant pain, I do not think that anyone other than the person should be able to make a decision as to whether that person lives or not. It is the individuals decision. The only role that family, friends, doctors, etc. should take is to ensure that it is what they really want and maybe to even try and convince. But to tell that person that they must carry on when it is not what they want is surely very cruel.

 

It still needs a decision by somebody else to carry out the patient's wishes.

 

S

[bluemonday]

A woman with multiple sclerosis has begun a High Court challenge to clarify the law on assisted suicide.

Clicky

I wish her well but no doubt she will have a struggle to get what she wants.

It really is time that some humanity and compassion was shown in cases like this, not the possibility of legal action against her husband.

[bluemonday]

And the result,

Woman loses assisted suicide case

[bluemonday]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...ire/7774652.stm

 

Wife defends suicide documentary

(Sky real lives tonight at 9pm )