IOM Covid removing restrictions

[woolley]

17 minutes ago, P.K. said:

@woolley

Typical.

Bitch and moan about the status quo but no ideas to move it forward....

Ideas are unnecessary as nature has the answer. Just bow to the inevitable. When a person's time has come and they have no quality of life, you allow them to choose whether to die. If they are beyond even that stage, incoherent or non-cognitive you do not intervene to preserve life artificially. Preferably, in my view, you do the kindest thing and help them on their way under appropriate scrutiny.

After years in this state, the hospital were still discussing how they might prolong my mother's predicament yet further by more surgery until hours before her death. It is completely ludicrous. What are we afraid of?

[quilp]

Discovering there's no god. 

[P.K.]

7 minutes ago, woolley said:

Ideas are unnecessary as nature has the answer. Just bow to the inevitable. When a person's time has come and they have no quality of life, you allow them to choose whether to die. If they are beyond even that stage, incoherent or non-cognitive you do not intervene to preserve life artificially. Preferably, in my view, you do the kindest thing and help them on their way under appropriate scrutiny.

After years in this state, the hospital were still discussing how they might prolong my mother's predicament yet further by more surgery until hours before her death. It is completely ludicrous. What are we afraid of?

How do you propose to safeguard their human rights?

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

How do you propose to safeguard their human rights?

After every shred of dignity, faculty and personality has gone, any imagined "rights" have already been withdrawn? There is no humanity left, just an empty husk. Would you want to continue that way? Would anyone?

[quilp]

It's a conflict of morality. The opposition to euthanasia and assisted dying eminating from the religious, the romantics and the suspicious. 

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, woolley said:

After every shred of dignity, faculty and personality has gone, any imagined "rights" have already been withdrawn? There is no humanity left, just an empty husk. Would you want to continue that way? Would anyone?

Let's refer to this:

19 minutes ago, woolley said:

After years in this state, the hospital were still discussing how they might prolong my mother's predicament yet further by more surgery until hours before her death. It is completely ludicrous. What are we afraid of?

The obvious answer is "where there's life there's hope" and they have sworn an oath to uphold that lofty ideal. Plus, lets face it, there's always litigation hanging around....

This issue has been around a while and it's a great deal more nuanced than your simplistic view.

[quilp]

1 minute ago, quilp said:

It's a conflict of morality. The opposition to euthanasia and assisted dying eminating from the religious, the romantics and the suspicious. 

 

1 minute ago, P.K. said:

Let's refer to this:

The obvious answer is "where there's life there's hope" 

That's the romanticism taken care of, all we need now is a religious person and a conspiracy theorist. 

[woolley]

11 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Let's refer to this:

The obvious answer is "where there's life there's hope" and they have sworn an oath to uphold that lofty ideal. Plus, lets face it, there's always litigation hanging around....

This issue has been around a while and it's a great deal more nuanced than your simplistic view.

That's where you are wrong. Frequently there is absolutely no hope whatsoever. Can you possibly have lived so long and not see this? You have to be trolling.

[P.K.]

1 minute ago, woolley said:

That's where you are wrong. Frequently there is absolutely no hope whatsoever. Can you possibly have lived so long and not see this? You have to be trolling.

Not at all.

Let's take your own personal situation. Presumably you don't want to end your days like your mother?

Personally neither do I from your description but have you given any thought as to how you could organise / engineer this?

For obvious reasons the medical staff would want nothing to do with this. It goes against their ethos. So perhaps legislation whereby you could nominate somebody to make the decision if you are not able to decide for yourself? So who would you nominate? Do you know anyone who could be trusted i.e. not in your will? Someone with no conscience who could sign on the dotted line? Someone who wouldn't feel guilt?

Unfortunately in my family I'm the nearest thing to a psychopath we've got....

[wrighty]

Parallel topics in this thread. 
 

Re the borders (no ‘a’), I’m afraid we need to keep ‘em tight/tighter. Countries across Europe seem to be getting second waves of infection, we’re still clear. Let’s keep it that way. Economy here is doing fine. The likes of me are spending more, rather than frittering it away on foreign holidays. Trades are doing well since people have more cash to spend locally. Carry on. 
 

As for euthanasia - try and get over the idea of god/soul (soul as some sort of mystical concept, rather than a higher brain function). You ARE your brain. Once that’s gone, because most of it’s died after a stroke, or it’s full of holes from Alzheimers/vascular disease, then YOU’re effectively dead. The fact that your heart still beats and your kidneys still produce urine is unimportant. 
 

I’ve given my kids a few intellectual criteria which define me. If I no longer understand them I’ve asked they please kill me, if at all legal to do so in the (hopefully) many years it may take me to get that far. I don’t want to end up in a home for the terminally bewildered, no matter what my EEG may indicate. 

[woolley]

25 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Not at all.

Let's take your own personal situation. Presumably you don't want to end your days like your mother?

Personally neither do I from your description but have you given any thought as to how you could organise / engineer this?

For obvious reasons the medical staff would want nothing to do with this. It goes against their ethos. So perhaps legislation whereby you could nominate somebody to make the decision if you are not able to decide for yourself? So who would you nominate? Do you know anyone who could be trusted i.e. not in your will? Someone with no conscience who could sign on the dotted line? Someone who wouldn't feel guilt?

Unfortunately in my family I'm the nearest thing to a psychopath we've got....

I believe a living will prepared in advance should be enough to overcome these objections, and then nature could be allowed to take its course or failing that, an overdose of sedative. I think you are quite wrong about what medical staff would want anything to do with. See wrighty above for a good example.

[quilp]

40 minutes ago, P.K. said:

For obvious reasons the medical staff would want nothing to do with this. It goes against their ethos.

There a lots of medical staff who'd disagree with what you're assuming. I would imagine there are many medics who would see it as humane and necessary. The "ethos" needs an overhaul...

Quote

So perhaps legislation whereby you could nominate somebody to make the decision if you are not able to decide for yourself?

This already exists, doesn't it? Relatives are regularly asked whether life support should be withdrawn. And in a roundabout way the fact some patients elect to have a DNR on their records accords the decision to someone, be it a doctor or relative.

Quote

So who would you nominate?

Next of kin? Partner? Attending physician?

Quote

Do you know anyone who could be trusted?

An unselfish loved one? Someone not consumed by the emotion of it all and the ability to decide the appropriate and humane course of action?

Quote

i.e. not in your will?

Ah, the all-important greedy relative, that's the conspiratorial inference dealt with. 

Quote

Someone with no conscience who could sign on the dotted line?

I would say making the decision to "sign on the dotted line" and end life involves an enormous amount of conscience. 

Quote

Someone who wouldn't feel guilt?

Why would anyone feel guilt when all options have been considered. We euthanise much-loved pets and animals, assuaging any guilt by reasoning that it was for the best, to put an end to their suffering, why should humans be any different? Keeping a suffering animal alive is selfish, even when there's little hope of recovery. Seen this many times.

Quote

Unfortunately in my family I'm the nearest thing to a psychopath we've got....

Blimey, how do you know..? And are you suggesting only a psychopathic individual would commit to pulling the plug or giving the nod? Is that what it takes? 

Edited July 29, 2020 by quilp

[TheTeapot]

3 hours ago, Out of the blue said:

I was hawkish on reopening borders and am not particularly worried about the virus as I feel that it has been blown out of all proportion, but listening to Allinson mentioning the potential reintroduction of social distancing if cases reappear made me shudder. I was happy to get the bloody government out of my life, they were not invited and they certainly are not welcome back. I do not want to go back to the queues, masks, stupid rules and the panic and neurotic behaviour exhibited by certain sections of the population. On balance I am now veering towards keeping tight border restrictions for the rest of the year even though it stick in my throat. It is best for the wellbeing of most businesses and the population as a whole.

I've seen a few people on twitter and facebook expressing similar views. Bringing back restrictions or making up new ones would be a terrible thing. 

[P.K.]

5 minutes ago, woolley said:

I believe a living will prepared in advance should be enough to overcome these objections, and then nature could be allowed to take its course or failing that, an overdose of sedative. I think you are quite wrong about what medical staff would want anything to do with. See wrighty above for a good example.

You have either completely missed, or probably deliberately ducked, the bit where someone has to withdraw the support and someone has to sign the DNAR form.

Unfortunately the DNAR is not a legal document and only covers breathing and heart failure.

I hope by now you are starting to realise that opting out without ramifications and fallout is currently a nightmare.

Not that you'll be bothered by then of course.

Personally I think narrowing the boundaries between "brain dead" and the evidence from scans on how much of the brain has died could be an answer...

[quilp]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

...the bit where someone has to withdraw the support and someone has to sign the DNAR form.

I was under the impression that the DNR instruction was normally at the discretion of the patient, giving consent to withdraw life support as in a living will. Patient signs up with certain conditions and after consideration of those conditions the attending physician signs the form and permission is legally granted. 

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Unfortunately the DNAR is not a legal document and only covers breathing and heart failure.

I'm almost csrtainly sure the DNR is a legal entity, equally it covers more than just respiration and cardiac infarction.

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Not that you'll be bothered by then of course.

That's just it, hopefully over the moon and far enough away to not care. You're kind of answering your own question here.

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Personally I think narrowing the boundaries between "brain dead" and the evidence from scans on how much of the brain has died could be an answer...

Bingo.