The right to Life.......?

Margaret Pilkington · 19-05-2005, 19:02

Do we have our values a bit cockeyed....?
A guy with Cerebral Ataxia has to go to court to establish his right to treatment.........and to fight Doctors attempts at the end of his life to starve him of nourishment and water.......and this decision is being made on a financial basis.
In effect, if your illness is terminal, the Doctors reserve the right to refuse 'treatment' because it costs £1500 per day to maintain a high dependency patient.......but Kamal Bourgass.....a terrorist,and a murderer can be kept in one of our prisons (regardless of cost) for the rest of his life.
Seems somewhat unfair to me.......What do you think....?

chav1 · 19-05-2005, 20:09

yet we wont allow those who want to die the right to die

euthinasia is less cruel than starving somone to death

murderers should be executed plain and simple so that the money saved can be spent on law abiding people who need medical help

out of curiosity i wonder how much money our govenment has wasted sticking its nose in other coutries affairs rather than protect and treat our own citizens

each year we can never find enough money to sort out the NHS yet as soon as some poxy country needs help we spend millions sending our troops to fight for them and millions spent on medicine for people in other countries

shouldnt we make sure the uk has sufficiant medical treatment and facilities before giving it away to foreighners in far away countries

Margaret Pilkington · 20-05-2005, 15:06

It is a very scary thought that health care should be restricted on any basis......let alone a financial one.

Tealeaf · 20-05-2005, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

It is a very scary thought that health care should be restricted on any basis......let alone a financial one.

Unfortunatly, Margaret, tough decisions have to be made. Why should scarce funds be spent on artificially prolonging the life of someone when the same resources could be diverted, to say, an oncology department? The earlier cancer is caught and treated, the higher the chances of survival. Surely funding in the NHS should go to where it can do the most good?

Debbie J · 20-05-2005, 15:45

Everyone has a right to life. We should be allowed to chose our time to die. I must admit I am a great believer in euthenasia when some one is terminally ill &/or suffering in agony and wants to die they should be allowed to without being made to feel like a criminal. I would hate it if my kids had to watch me die slowly just because some do-gooder says it's wrong for me to be put to sleep with my dignity in tact. I can't remember the number of times I have heard the term "you wouldn't let an animal suffer like that" when relating to someone who is dying.

But where a person who is sick wants to live they should be able to do so without being made to feel they are a drain on society. I'm sure if people were given the right to choose there would be enough in the kitty for all.

Tealeaf · 20-05-2005, 15:59

OK Debbie. Suppose for a moment you are terminally ill. Your child is also very ill. The Doctor gives you a clinical choice - he can treat you and prolong your life for an extra few weeks, but cannot treat your child, and then your child will then become terminally ill; or he can let you go, and threat your child and your child lives.

Which do you go for?

The fact is that thousands of decisions on clinical priorities are made in the NHS every day. There is never enough money to go round to pay for this, and I as a taxpayer object to the wastage involved in maintaining life when all hope is gone. If their families wish to prolong suffering, then let them do so - but with money from their own pocket.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-05-2005, 16:07

I take on board what you are saying Tealeaf......but I believe it is a very short step to withdrawing treatment for other terminal illnesses......cancer being one of those.
I know all about the NHS.......having worked in it for more that 30 years.

The medical profession equate nourishment and water as 'treatment' for this guy with the cerebral ataxia.......It must be agony to die a lingering death when food and water is withdrawn. I believe that Euthanasia in situations like this, would be a kinder option......although i am not advocating euthanasia per se.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-05-2005, 16:10

The other point I was making was that we can fund the care of a murderer in prison......paid for by our taxes.......but cannot fund the care of a terminally ill man......something wrong there surely.

Tealeaf · 20-05-2005, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

The other point I was making was that we can fund the care of a murderer in prison......paid for by our taxes.......but cannot fund the care of a terminally ill man......something wrong there surely.

Well, I certainly agree with you about this nonsense over terrorists in prison.

If it is your priority that the taxpayer should spend money on hopeless cases, fine. Personally, |I believe that such cases should have no more than the medication neccessary to give then a dignified and painless end. I cannot see the point of spending additional taxpayer funds when those same amounts could go into stopping people contracting fatal diseases in the first place.

Margaret Pilkington · 20-05-2005, 16:33

And I agree with you......a dignified end is not one where you are starved of nourishment and water. We are not talking of expensive medication in this particular case.

Mik Dickinson · 20-05-2005, 16:36

Point being T. Would you say the same thing if you were in that position or would you fight for every minute that you lived

Debbie J · 20-05-2005, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

OK Debbie. Suppose for a moment you are terminally ill. Your child is also very ill. The Doctor gives you a clinical choice - he can treat you and prolong your life for an extra few weeks, but cannot treat your child, and then your child will then become terminally ill; or he can let you go, and threat your child and your child lives.

Which do you go for?

The fact is that thousands of decisions on clinical priorities are made in the NHS every day. There is never enough money to go round to pay for this, and I as a taxpayer object to the wastage involved in maintaining life when all hope is gone. If their families wish to prolong suffering, then let them do so - but with money from their own pocket.

If I was terminally ill I would want to say my goodbyes and die sooner rather than later. I know this would not be everybodies choice but it would be mine not to suffer a lingering painful death(maybe I'm a coward) with my family having to stand by watching helplessly. What harm would I be doing. As cruel & heartless as it may sound I was glad my mum died when she did as she was not suffering anymore and my then 11 year old brother didn't have to watch it for too long. I still miss my mum dearly 20 years on but I was glad she went when she did.
But surely someone who wants to live should be allowed to after all how much does it cost to feed someone.

Tealeaf · 20-05-2005, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mik Dickinson

Point being T. Would you say the same thing if you were in that position or would you fight for every minute that you lived

I'd say bye-bye then sod off out of it.

staggeringman · 20-05-2005, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

I'd say bye-bye then sod off out of it.

what without partaking in a gallon or two of holts

grannyclaret · 20-05-2005, 17:41

nobody with a sound mind should be starved to death ..withdrawing food and water is cruel ,that poor woman that they did that to a few weeks ago lasted for about 15 days ..i said then if they realy must be put down ,like a sick animal ,then give them a lethal injection ...oh what a horrible world we live in today ........