And he has good reason. I know it could be difficult, but I would like to remind him that it has been done before.. And if the normal channels don’t work, there’s always the black market.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
The proponents of Doctor’s assisted suicide have always points to Neatherland for its success on that matter. What was left out of their arguement is that many elderly in Neatherland are afraid to go to doctors or hospital. More so after doctors there acknowledged that they regularly kill off elderly patients on the belief that they’re doing the right thing…
Roger,
I really think that this is hyperbole. The case of the child at Alder Hey hospital is not a slide towards totalitarianism, nor is it a slide towards this sort of thing. The child had a terminal illness with no known cure and was in pain. The court made its decision based on the interests of the child.
In fact, decisions about the best interest of the child can swing the other way. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses courts have allowed doctors to go against the parents wishes and give children life-savings blood infusions. The issue is the best interest of the child.
This is not to say this is not a difficult ethical area, for the parents in question they felt every effort should be made to extend life – even though the outcome was certain and the result of their efforts could have led to increased suffering.
The idea that Britain is slipping into totalitarianism is a little far-fetched. Rather similar to the idiocy you see from moonbats who suggest that the Bush Administration is in the process of created a totalitarian state.
Can I just say something, in the cold anononymity of the blogosphere, where I pray that precious baby’s mother cannot hear me?
OK, here goes.
What happened to that baby is the inevitable and unaavoidable side effect of the fact that health care costs money, AND that there is a finite amount of money being spent on it. It is sad, it is tragic, but honestly I don’t know what much could have been done about it.
I’m not even blaming socialized medicine here. Even private health insurance systems face these hard realities. As health care costs rise we must admit that there are treatments that we cannot afford. And we have to be cold and rational enough to way the costs against their benefits as well. So the question is not IF a decision is made that sacrifices health or life for the sake of money, it is WHEN… and WHO makes the decisions: bureaucrats (in a socialized system), insurance companies (in a private insurance system), or individuals (in a pay-as-you-go system)? No answer is perfect.
Must health care costs necessarily rise? While there are certainly ways to lower the costs, I argue that the answer is yes. The reason is simple: the medical care industry keeps lengthening its job description! The pace with which we invent new drugs and treatments and identify new diseases is likely to outstrip the work that could be done to find cheaper treatments for known diseases. And what inevitably happens is that new developments and treatments that are too new, too experimental—and yes, sometimes too expensive—for insurance companies and governments to pay for, especially when weight against their benefits. Insurance companies try to control this by limitng the treatments they cover, but inevitably something new and expensive gets slipped in and suddenly we’re footing the bill for it.
I frankly think that a fiscally limited medical system is a cold hard reality that society has to accept—alongside the fact that we’re all mortal. Whether we socialize our health care system or not, we’re stuck with limited care.
Big Fire,
While there is a debate to be had about euthanasia, I used to work at a Hospice and have misgivings about it, it is important to note that the case of this child was not about euthanasia.
It was about the extent of efforts that should be made to maintain a life. The baby would have died whatever the treatment given. The only question is, to what extent such treatment would have been a cruel prolongation of the life of the child, which was suffering already.
Even mcg’s comments are incorrect. If there had been a chance of the baby improving or any actions reducing its suffering the courts decision would have been different. In fact, the medical staff would never had took it to court, because anybody who has worked on a neonatal unit will know that the staff do everything to extend life they can.
Agreed, that’s a much more fundamental issue that the one I was addressing here. This was NOT euthanasia. The baby had a terminal, incurable illness. He had outlived the life expectancy already by several months; he was on borrowed time. This was a compassionate choice on the part of the doctors—NOT to euthanize, but to provide comfort care only.
ìThe child had a terminal illness with no known cure and was in pain. The court made its decision based on the interests of the child.î
This is also the position of orthodox Christianity and perhaps Judaism(?). Even the most reactionary of Roman Catholic theologians teach that there is no obligation to keep someone alive via extraordinary means. Unplugging a machine is many instances is deemed moral. However, the euthanasia often going on in the Netherlands is an entirely different kettle of fish. These doctors are not acting passively, but actively. They are murderers. But what about a secular perspective? Should religious values dominate a democratic nation? The answer is simple: a secular argument can easily be made prohibiting the direct killing of human beings. Adhering to per se religious values has nothing to with it.
Well, definitely not the second method (particularly because of the specific example), but the first one I could consider! Any bachelorette around?
The question is who makes the decision. Ideally, it would be the parents (standard caveats). In a private system, if the mother had the money. she could presumably have purchased the additional treatment. In some public systems (Canada, I believe) that is illegal.
The doctors and courts should have no place in such a decision unless they are intervening in child abuse.
But since its a manner of money, they had the power. Their policies overrode what should be a family decision.
This sort of thing is a step towards some sort of unfree society. When the family loses its most important powers, the state is taking them on. And a state which does that in one area will do it in others.
Personally, I think Canada is ahead in the race towards unfreedom, with their speech laws indirectly preventing the discussion of important issues under penalty of imprisonment.
The point is that Alder Hey was insensitive for a childrens hospital,they don’t have a good record in this,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1143414.stm
Furthermore increasingly relatives are excluded from the process,the distress of the mother in this case should have been taken into account,surely a kinder way could have been found?
On the cost of medical treatment and the apportioning of resources,I would be more impressed if the NHS did not have so much waste.For example, a friend who has a business making disabled equipment tells me there are literally hundreds of appliances junked with no defects other than a new rubber stopper or somesuch triviality.Hundreds more simply go missing.
There are also more administrators than there are beds and nurses.Sort this then we can talk about resources.
I’m not knowledgeable enough about this specific case to comment one way or the other. But if I examine my own mortality, I want to die with some dignity. I don’t want some do gooder keeping me alive on the hope that maybe someday they’ll get grandpa to sit up again. Let me decide when it’s time.
I don’t want to be able to sit up again so that I can soil myself while sitting up rather than while lying in bed. I dream that when the time comes I would have a Dr. Jack Kervorkian with me to help with the preparation. Unfortunately society has deemed him a nut instead of an angel. I don’t dread death, I do dread society forcing me to live one minute longer than I naturally should.
Furthermore increasingly relatives are excluded from the process,the distress of the mother in this case should have been taken into account,surely a kinder way could have been found?
Is distress of the mother is more important than the interests of the child?
If the mother’s views mean that medical therapy will be used to extend a suffering, is that more important than her distress? Does the child have rights as an individual, or are they subjugated to the rights of the mother to keep it alive whatever the consequences?
If the latter, then you would you disagree with courts allowing medical staff to give blood transfusions to save a child again the wishes of parents.
Perhaps, sometimes in extreme situations the relatives make the wrong decision, for quite understandable reasons.
We should be thankful that we are not put in such positions that often, but let’s not make villify those who are put in the position of having to make such judgements.
To the Americans in the audience at least: let this discussion be a reminder to fill out your Advance Health Directives. Make your wishes known in advance, especially if you wish not to be resuscitated in certain cases.
“Is distress of the mother is more important than the interests of the child?”
No but it has to be weighed regarding the human and moral aspects of the case.
I have never read a more priggish response,the operative word was “sensitive”,the other was” surely a kinder way could be found”.If you had read the link you would have seen that Alder Hey has been the subject of an official enquiry in this respect.
“Perhaps, sometimes in extreme situations the relatives make the wrong decision, for quite understandable reasons.”
Antony baby I have seen and been victim of more medical cock ups than you have had hot dinners.Medical staff do make the wrong decisions for quite inexplicable reasons.And yes we should challenge those decisions It is our fucking lives on the block,you may not know it but patients are selected by triage,someone somewhere will decide whether it is more cost effective to save your life or another patients.
As for vilifying those who have this task,I am emphatically not but they are not beyond criticism and if they do become so then Barcepundit is right.
BTW Have you ever been a patient,if not and you become ill always read your records on the end of the bed,look out for the acronym DNR.
Here’s some backstory on this.
The British National Health has killed at least one person of my acquaintance. Even third world autocrats like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore will take their loved ones back to the third world for treatment rather than expose them to the NHS.
This is health care provided by the kind of people who work at the Department of Motor Vehicles. How can you trust it?
Peter,
I am well aware of the offical enquiry into Alder Hey, which has little to do with this case, since it is concerned with the retention of the organs of already dead children.
As for your observation that medical staff make the wrong decisions, I have seen many myself, and indeed in my professional life have prevented a few from causing serious harm to patients. Doctors however are not malicious, unless you count psychopaths like Harold Shipman, and are trying to do the best for patients.
This is not to say that Doctors should not be challenged, I firmly believe they should be.
However, Doctors, and anyone in a position of authority, are suffering from the same corrosive lack of trust we see displayed towards politicians. Doctors want to let your child die, vaccines cause autism, Blair lied, Bush was in on the 911 attacks, etc. It’s the same irrationalist stream of conspiracy theory that parades as the norm these days.
In the case we are discussing here, the issues are clear and the doctors were not making a mistake, they were making a judgement in the interests of the child concerned (which you may disagree with) and a higher authority (the courts) had to act in the child’s interests.
As for looking at the end of one’s bed for the do not resusitate (DNR) chart, I have seen in my time patients resusitated, by accident, who have previously stated a wish not to be resusitated. Resusitation is not a pleasant process to put someone through when they are at the end of their life. A number of cases of a similar nature has led to much tighter procedures for DNR orders, not less so.
Frankly Barcepundit is wrong on this issue. Completely and utterly.
If you think this case is evidence of a slide to totalitarianism in Europe, rather than an ethical issue that people may differ on, then you are a moonbat.
Oh come off it Richard, despite the difficulties in the NHS, it is not that bad.
Medical error is a world wide issue.
The 1999 Insitiute of Medicine report on medical errors, To Err is Human, calculated that between 44,000 to 98,000 people die annually due to errors in inpatient hospital treatment in the US.
That’s three Jumbo’s dropping out of the sky each day.
The evidence suggests the UK is no better, but to suggest that medical error is a special attribute of the NHS is ludicrous.
It is related to the fact that medical care is delivered by humans, be it done in the Netherlands, the UK, India or Japan.
Your views then Anthony on the thousands of deaths in the NHS from methicillin resistant staphlococcus aeureus.
Anthony, that you seem to automatically accept that the courts’ determination of “the best interest” of the child trumps the mother’s determination is what is of concern.
Anthony ó Case One: from my direct experience. Woman I worked with, a gifted costume designer for stage, screen and BBC, goes to the NHS.
“Oh, yes,” they tell her. “You have lung cancer.”
“Come back in three months.”
And I’m getting tired of hearing of these authoritative studies that are sure their numbers are accurate +/1 100%. 44,000 to 98,000? Glad they nailed it down like that. Those numbers are as bad as the Lancet Iraq report (“95% sure of our numbers between 8,000ñ198,000).
And I’m not talking about human error. I’m talking about death by bureaucratic indifference.
I wonder if anyone keeps a blog archiving the horrors of medical care in Britain and Canada (and the US as well).
When medical care is dispensed by the State, the State gets to decide who lives and dies.
The NHS has always had somewhat of the workhouse ethic to it,an equality of misery.This can be seen in some of the big mixed sex wards that still exist.We don’t live like that why should it be imposed when we go into hospital?
One example of bureaucracy,a friend’s elderly mother had Alzheimers,the local Health authority was one that had decided that a drug available that would ameliorate the condition was too expensive,although it was available in other areas.The mother developed an extremely severe chest infection the hospital spent months keeping her alive so that she could die of the terminal stages of Alzheimers causing untold grief to the family.More money was spent keeping the poor woman alive than was the cost of the drug that would have enabled her to have a few more years of relative relief.
Your views then Anthony on the thousands of deaths in the NHS from methicillin resistant staphlococcus aeureus.
Appalling. A relative of mine died from an MRSA infection 2 months ago in an NHS hospital. She acquired it during routine treatment for a kidney disorder. She was 43. Do not presume that I live in some sort of bubble separated from the NHS. I have also worked within private hospitals within the UK and seen practices that were extremely poor – mainly due to a desire to extract maximum profit from the system.
The drug available that Peter suggests would ameliorate Alzheimers is not a panacea or miracle cure. It merely delays the inevitable and is only useful in mild to moderate cases of Alzheimers. Even then there is no evidence that this results in meaningful benefits.
In any healthcare system rationing occurs whether it is private or funded nationally. Peter should ask himself if he would have personally paid for something with such limited benefit – and which is not without adverse effects. It would almost certainly have not prevented the high cost of care that his friend’s mother required.
Richard,
I’m also critical of the Lancet study on Iraqi civilian deaths (here and here), but the evidence of medical harm is much more robust than a single study using a dubious sampling method.
As for death by bureaucratic indifference, I’m not sure you you can make a case for that occurring. If you turn up in a UK hospital today, you will not be treated by a bureaucrat, but you will be at risk of medical error or avoidable adverse drug reactions.