Sunday, January 30, 2011

Sanctity of Life and Hypocrisy


If you or I had an elderly relative who we decided had a crap quality of life, and we shoved them in the attic to die of thirst and hunger, the end result would be a Life sentence for murder.
But if that elderly relative was in hospital and the Doctor decided they had a crap quality of life, they can order the withdrawal of "treatment". "Treatment" includes food and water, and the old geezer dies from dehydration. That's deemed to be okay.
Hmmm.

38 comments:

  1. Hi

    I'm quite sure the consent of the family is required for this...

    Letting anyone die in that way is clearly out of order but I suspect the doctors don't want to be accused of murder if they hasten things in a more painless way...

    The simple fact is the NHS does not have the funds to keep people hanging on indefinitely.

    There's not much that can be done about this beyond pouring more money into it, sacking the admins and employing real nurses and there's not the political will, especially now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. you're so right to protest against this practice; thank you. few people realise the extent of the deplorable things which go on in hospitals, in relation to the elderly. if they were hapeening to children, there'd be an outcry...

    ReplyDelete
  3. i dont get that choice when im in hospital i either eat or they force me to eat and put drips into me even if i refuse then if i do refuse they would just section me you cant win

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also Ben it's not called Euthanasia it's called a Sedation Pack..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, because they are not capable of eating or drinking for themselves. This is something that is done for terminal patients, patients who are not going to survive. It is a way of allowing them to die with some dignity. We give them painkillers and oxygen and anything else that gives them comfort and allow them to die rather than artificially prolonging their life and their pain. Giving food or fluids in many circumstances would prolong life only a few more days and cause their death to be much, much more painful and unpleasant.

    Believe me Ben, if you'd ever watched a relative or someone you loved die the long slow way you'd be glad of the decision to withdraw treatment. I have, and I was so grateful that my grandmother was allowed to die in her own home, with peace and pain relief, rather than sustained artificially for days more of pain and discomfort.

    Dying of dehydration is not unpleasant when you are at that stage of illness. You basically just slowly lose conciousness. If we give fluids, on the other hand, mostly they die of cardiac failure, which is sort of like drowning from the inside out. Which would you choose?

    @Catherine Milne As it happens we do the exact same for terminally ill children, because it is a *kindness* not an act of cruelty.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is all the difference in the world between killing a living person and allowing a dying person to go naturally. There comes a time when medical interventions in the dying process can only extend a distressing event; they can't promote or restore life. It's only murder if the patient would have got better.

    ReplyDelete
  7. From a Christian perspective, it is not for us to determine when a life should come to an end, be that abortion, capital punishment or euthanasia. All life is sacred. In the case of terminally ill people, there is always the danger that we are acting against the person's wishes, or that they are not in their right mind to give permission. How many people would be done away with because they are an inconvenience to others? The body may be suffering but sometimes the spirit wants to fight on. We should do everything possible to ease their suffering but not withhold sustenance. In the case of abortion, they have no voice of course. Every possible support and help should be given to the mother so that this soul may have life. A very emotive subject.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A fetus is not a life, a woman is. Too many died in the backstreets having abortions and it still goes on today in places where abortion is illegal like Ireland for example. Causes of unwanted pregnancies are complex and it should be up to the one that is pregnant to decide the outcome, not the church and not the state.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yet we wouldn't make an animal suffer in the same way. Sanctity of life yes, but the quality of that life must be of equal importance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I see Anonymous January 31, 2011 12:03 PM So you get to decide what life and isn't and yet the church and the state can't. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To Anonymous: 'A fetus is not a life, a woman is.'

    This is purely your personal opinion. We all began as a fetus! And anyone who has lost a baby in the early stages of a planned pregnancy would be unlikely to agree with you. Of course there are many complex reasons for unplanned pregnancy, but many thousands of unborn human beings are being killed because of their parents' reckless and thoughtless unprotected sex. That is a fact I'm afraid. Pregnancy in the great majority of cases was avoidable!

    I have an adopted brother who would not be alive now if his 16 year old mother had not been courageous enough to do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. We've all heard of and got individual cases to back up our positions, whichever side of the abortion debate we are on. Fact is the fetus is in the body of a woman and that should be respected; her wishes; and not those of the church or the state especially if the decisions of the aforesaid institutions degrade women and their rights to their own bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't know to what church you refer, but as a follower of Jesus Christ I can say categorically that God does not degrade women. What human beings do in the name of religion cannot be attributed to God, that is a different matter. Jesus' respect and treatment of women was radical in His culture. As for rights, these must be balanced always with responsibilities. There is always the option of avoiding sex until you are ready to welcome any resulting child. Aborted lives have NO choice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Such reductionism as "Aborted lives have NO choice", is just pulling on heart strings or to put it another way - emotional blackmail.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Aborted lives have NO choice" is a fact though.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Its a fact that a fetus is inside a womans body. She has a life and a history that ought to be respected first.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why, is there something special about her life and her history that warrants this or is it just emotional blackmail?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Last comment from me on this subject. Firstly, surely there is nothing much more degrading to a woman than lying on a bed letting a stranger have access to her body in order to clinically kill and remove her unborn child from her womb.

    Secondly, many women suffer untold mental suffering and regret in later life from taking this step. Surely any caring person must agree it is best to make every effort to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and support women to either keep their child or offer their baby for adoption. The alternative - to get so complacent about abortion that you no longer see it for what in fact it is - a human tragedy of the highest order, and morally wrong in every respect.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "morally wrong in every respect."

    No-one needs that sort of moralising when dealing with such painful issues, its up to the woman concerned and she should be utterly supported. If society had that attitude of support together with providing decent sex education in schools (not moralising or telling them not to do it for example) we might see things improve for everyone all round.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This happened to my mother who was in advanced stages of cancer. It hurried up the inevitable and was preferable to her suffering any longer, both she and I were relieved for her to go.

    And actually Jules, there is nothing more degrading than lying on a bed being gang raped. It is not morally wrong to choose an abortion afterwards, your god has no say on what I do to my body.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I've had an abortion, it was awful, and i wouldn't wish it on my worse enemy. But i don't regret it. I was young, and didn't think a screaming baby in one arm, and an electric bill i can't pay in the other was going to be much fun, and may have resented the baby that stopped me going out with friends etc, which in turn, wouldn't have made me the best mum. Just because i made a mistake, i didn't think i should have to pay for it for the rest of my life. (nor should anyone in jail have to pay for their mistakes for the rest of their life).

    Anyway, back to the matter in hand. My late grandad was old and sick, in a home, and had given up the will to live, in as much as he had no interest in reading, tv etc, in fact if i had told him i had won the lottery, i doubt that would even have interested him. The staff put DNR on his file. When he died, half of me was devestated, and the other half, pleased it was all over for him.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jules, I know I'm getting in on this a little late, but back to your first comment about how it's not for us to decide when a life ends...what is life support *but* trying to decide when a life ends? Can we say that God intended for that person to live another two days when their body is already shutting down, and they're only technically alive because humans are interfering in the natural process of death to keep them that way?

    To be clear, I'm not against life support on principle (though I think if I were only going to live a few more days anyway I'd prefer to skip the heroic measures) but I do wonder at your specific argument. Why does stepping back and letting nature take it's course constitute playing God, while using machines to keep someone's body functioning after it would naturally have shut down does not?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous January 31, 2011 9:45 PM So you expect the church and state to butt out of your decisions and then expect to be supported by them and also blame them for "your" predicament. Sorry but to me you want it all ways, all the rights and no responsibilty and to hell with everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unwanted pregnancies happen, all the time. Yes, sometimes people should have been more careful/better educated/psychic, but sometimes things just happen. Sometimes women are unable to take care of a child, sometimes they did not choose to have sex, sometimes things just happen.

    About half of the abortions that happen per year are legal. So making them illegal does not in any way prevent people from having them.

    Hundreds of women die every year from abortions. Most of these deaths are from illegal abortions. So by making abortion illegal we not only don't prevent them from happening, we condemn a huge number of women to die.

    If the church spent more time helping women with unwanted pregnancies and less time condemning them and protesting outside clinics and generally trying to make everyone feel guilty for their circumstances I would have a lot more respect for them. Better sex education, better counselling, better information and services for young women... all of this would help.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Check out Lighthouse, Christian counselling service for women, and just one of many services that the church as a whole run to help pregnant women, unmarried mothers and others in difficult circumstances. And I don't think you will find that I condemned any woman, I just think they should be helped to make better choices. 'Hundreds of women die every year from abortions'. As I said, abortion is a human tragedy of the highest order, whether legal or illegal. And anyone who knows about sex education in schools nowadays, it's not about abstaining, and includes such advice as how to put on a condom and practice 'safe sex', but it's obviously still not working, so what is the answer?

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ anon feb 1 2011 12.11pm Why do you turn the debate into a personal attack? I expect you know nothing of anon January 31, 2011 9:45 PM's personal circumstances, so why try to make a personal attack?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ anon February 1, 2011 7:40 PM A Personal attack being what exactly, challenging them?

    As you say I don't know them but I only have what they wrote to go by and it's plainly obvious they blame everyone and everything but themselves who she seems to want to put on some sort of pedestal.

    It's quite sad really..

    ReplyDelete
  28. Challenging them personally, as you have just done again, is not on. You know nothing about anon, and it is just a personal attack to say "it's ... obvious they blame everyone and everything but themselves who she seems to want to put on some sort of pedestal." This is not a forum for personal attacks as the Editor has said, so any as you continue to make personal attacks I put a request to Ben and Ed that these comments be taken down, as Ed said they should be.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Anon February 1, 2011 8:44 PM You are highly amusing do you know that? Read what they have written first and then try the censorship ploy. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh and by the way please try and remember why this blog exists in the form that it does when you try to insist the owners of it delete comments...

    ReplyDelete
  31. ... personal attacks are not on anon, and this has been stated by PrisonerBen

    ReplyDelete
  32. prisonerben said...

    You are quite right, Mary. These spats are sinking to greater depths now and the comment you refer to has been removed. We support freedom of speech but let's keep it clean and not use this forum for personal attacks. Ed
    January 29, 2011 10:09 AM

    ReplyDelete
  33. Still trying on the old censorship game are we?

    Nothing new there then...

    ReplyDelete
  34. So, first you make a personal attack on someone here and then go on to claim somehow you are a victim? That is crazy and in a nasty way.

    ReplyDelete
  35. LOL I should use your powers of deception eleswhere because you clearly are predujice in your analysis of what constitutes a personal attack.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Jules I'm aware there are a few things but I still think that the more high profile stuff is very judgemental and unpleasant, particularly in the states. My apologies if you felt that those comments were aimed at you, I know you specifically weren't condemning anyone.

    Also, I still believe that proper sex ed is the answer. Sex education in schools in the UK is still a bit shit, to be honest.

    Incidentally, does Ben get to see the comments in reply to his original post or does he not enter debate?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Emma, thank-you for your comment above, much appreciated. It's unfortunate that only the negative elements of the church seem to make the press, and I agree with you; there are some things done in the name of Christianity that make me cringe too.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.