Woman begs for a cup of tea....

Quote:

---

In a statement to William Armstrong, the coroner, Mrs West said her mother had begged her for something to eat and drink, or a cup of tea, but the request was refused by a nurse, on the doctor’s orders. Her last days were spent with her false teeth and hearing aid removed from her bedside, in a cold hospital room.

She was admitted on September 14, 2003, after a suspected stroke.After two weeks Dr Maisey allegedly told Mrs West that he was surprised her mother was still alive and said that if the family intervened, he would have them arrested.

---

link

I have no set opinion on euthanasia, I would take each case on it's merits and circumstances. However this does seem a cruel and barbaric way of assisting someones death. If I was part of her family, I would have told the doctor to get the police and do their worst. Shameful.

We need to get our act together and decide where we are going with the issue of euthanasia. This is not how it should be done, if done at all. Put it this way, if I'd acted in this manner to my dog I would expect to face the full majesty of the law. :shame:

I am almost speechless with horror. :shame:

I remember how emotionally unstable I was when my own mother was dying in hospital (where she received only the highest standard of care) and had she begged me to help her in such circumstances I doubt if I could have answered for my actions towards a doctor like Maisey. Yes, the police would have been needed.

To draw back from the horror of the situation reported and to examine the principle of euthanasia, I have to say I have long been in favour of it. I would go further - I have never seen why a rational adult cannot be allowed to procure the means to end their life easily and without censure.

As our population ages, and quality of life diminishes in many cases, there should be the option for the simple choice to let go, at a time one chooses, in a gentle manner. The comparison with vets is not an unequal one - we gift our pets the opportunity to go to sleep peacefully when their time is done, and people are frowned upon when they are too emotionally attached to let a suffering pet die. Why is this? Is it just because the religious have decided Tiddles has no soul?

There must of course be checks and balances for those not in a position to make decisions for themselves. To this end, every adult should be required to produce a living will detailing their preferences, so that families are spared the emotional trauma of having to make those decisions. In addition, full medical support should be given to the incapacitated if they choose to try to live. (There is a challenge inherent in that latter position, which is that modern medicine can keep alive a person who is to all intents and purposes, a mere breathing corpse, but nonetheless, choice means choice and we shoud be prepared to pay for treatment for someone who chooses life, however miserable).

I would like to end my life at a time of my choosing (should accidents not intervene) and gently, with dignity, with time to prepare any who should care about me. I have no fear of death or the oblivion it brings - and I enjoy life immensely, and would not bear to see those memories and experiences to come washed away by an inexorable tide of dribble and incontinence. I don't see why I should be shackled to the morality espoused by 'sanctity of life' advocates, invariably religious, when I don't share their views.

Wait, let me get this straight: the doctors refuse necessities to a patient capable of asking for them, and a family demanding for them for the patient?

WTF? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I am almost speechless with horror. :shame:

I remember how emotionally unstable I was when my own mother was dying in hospital (where she received only the highest standard of care) and had she begged me to help her in such circumstances I doubt if I could have answered for my actions towards a doctor like Maisey. Yes, the police would have been needed.

---

You know, this Maisey may have needed the coroner earlier than my mom.~:rolleyes:

As this was done without the consent of the patient or family it sounds like murder to me.

Quote:

---

if the family intervened, he would have them arrested.

---

Maybe after he picked his jaw up off the floor. KA-POW! :boxing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

As this was done without the consent of the patient or family it sounds like murder to me.

---

Yes, technically it would be murder.

Wow, someone’s going to jail (I hope). So, the hospital refused to feed this woman despite a court order? It sounds like if anything, the police would have enforced the court order and not arrested the family. I thought Shiavo(?) was a mess here, I hope you guys have fun with *this* one. What a crazy doctor.

Disgusting. The article makes it quite clear that the hospital staff refused nutrition despite the requests of both a lucid patient and relatives, and a court decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I thought Shiavo(?) was a mess here

---

Well Shiavo(sp??) wasn't really a mess, her husband had the right and he decided. Fair and legal.
In this case however the ones that did have the right wanted treatment but was denied by the doctor.:dizzy2:
Really an awful story.
I don't think doctors should have such a right unless during extreme circumstances which this case doesn't seem to be.

On the other hand if she had chocked to death on a piece of food would that be murder too?

No but at least it beats starving to death over the course of several days. :furious3:

Not having a drink must have been like being tortured. Poor, poor woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Not having a drink must have been like being tortured. Poor, poor woman.

---

Under narcotics not necessarily.
I have to say, I find the article pretty unclear. Among other things, the chronology of events is a bit hard to follow.

Quote:

---

The order was made by Mr Justice Forbes in the High Court on October 6, 2003, after an application by Mrs Knockels’ grandson, Christopher West. Four days earlier all food and fluid had been withdrawn. The next day, however, the order was varied by the judge when David Maisey, a consultant, telephoned him. In the amended order, of October 7, nutrition and hydration were to be reinstated only “so far as is medically possible”.

---

This was one day before her death. However, feeding her was already tried earlier:

Quote:

---

When Mrs Knockels was admitted, she was given intravenous fluids but, ten days later, nurses found they could not gain access to a vein so it was decided fluids would be given by subcutaneous infusion. But, the inquest was told, on October 2, medical staff found fluid leaking and the removal of the equipment was ordered. Two attempts were said to have been made to insert a naso-gastric tube, but without success.

---

So as it seems to me, when the amended order came on Oct 7, she was already as good as dead because a naso-gastric tube didn't work and feeding her manually would have cause asphyxiation.
So it seems to me the doctor had two choices: letting her starve in combination with narcotics, which is the usual way of assisted dying or letting her choke to death. This might be a wrong interpretation of the events (as I feel it's hard for a layperson to interpret them) but in my view, the doctor was the one to make the decision, not the daughter.

Thanks Saturnus for that insight. :bow:

Then increase the diamorphine levels to precipitate a speedy death, sadly the law, at least in the UK, does not allow for such an action.

So my statement at the start of this thread is still valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

........
So as it seems to me, when the amended order came on Oct 7, she was already as good as dead because a naso-gastric tube didn't work and feeding her manually would have cause asphyxiation.
So it seems to me the doctor had two choices: letting her starve in combination with narcotics, which is the usual way of assisted dying or letting her choke to death. This might be a wrong interpretation of the events (as I feel it's hard for a layperson to interpret them) but in my view, the doctor was the one to make the decision, not the daughter.

---

Why did the hospital not repair the machine that was rehydrating Olive subcutaneously after it was found to be 'leaking'?

And why did the doctor speak in such a manner about putting patients down like animals?
"In a statement, Christopher West said: “I told Dr Maisey: ‘I wouldn’t treat my dog like that’, and he said it was easier for vets because they . . . can put animals to sleep.”"

It does not change the fact that slow codes and witholding liquids are informal methods to bump off patients who doctors feel are beyond help.

This is the first time in my life that I really wish for someone to go to hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

This might be a wrong interpretation of the events (as I feel it's hard for a layperson to interpret them) but in my view, the doctor was the one to make the decision, not the daughter.

---

I thank you for your rational and helpful insight on this Saturnus. But this last line, I'm afraid I have to take issue here.... I appreciate your point, that the doctor is the only one qualified to make the medical judgement that the patient would in all likelihood struggle with feeding tubes. But call me old fashioned, I simply do not want the medical establishment to be making arbitrary decisions about who lives and who dies. Allowing this decision to pass uncontested is one more step. The next, which is already being hinted at by medical ethicists, is doctors deciding who is worthy of treatment and who is not. It's stories like this that are the reason why I personally DO NOT go to physicians, no matter what is wrong. I know I'm a touch paranoid, but doctors terrify me.

What was she dying from? Eating or drinking something could have done more harm then good, causing her to puke or cause stomachaches, who knows.

I have no set opinion on euthanasia, I would take each case on it's merits and circumstances.

Euthanesia is not like ordering a beer at the bar, you have to be in insufferable pain, and there should be no medical cure.

Whoa, feed her and have her choke, or let her starve? Those were the options? I'm actually laughing at the absurdity behind my monitor, here. Could not the doctor or hospital provided a quicker means? A lethal injection, or even a quick neck-break? She must have been a feeble one. This might sound obscene or insincere, but I would take a quick death over a drawn out (and not to mention ignoble) one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Then increase the diamorphine levels to precipitate a speedy death, sadly the law, at least in the UK, does not allow for such an action.

---

Yes indeed. Let's face it: decisions about whether treatment should be given are part of everyday life in hospitals all around the world. Resistence against legalization of euthanasia do not prevent doctors from making decisions about who has to die and who is been tried to save, rather it keeps it in a grey area and prevents it from being regulated properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangat

Why did the hospital not repair the machine that was rehydrating Olive subcutaneously after it was found to be 'leaking'?

---

I'm no doctor, but it may not be that easy.

Quote:

---

It does not change the fact that slow codes and witholding liquids are informal methods to bump off patients who doctors feel are beyond help.

---

They are also informal methods to help people die who would die anyway, only slower. Helping people to die is as much a doctor's duty as saving lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don

But call me old fashioned, I simply do not want the medical establishment to be making arbitrary decisions about who lives and who dies.

---

They already do that, Don. So much to further your concern, but it is not just about living and dying. In my view, the doctors have to do what is best for the patient and that is not always keeping him or her alive. I for one find the idea of being kept alive against my will to be one of the most horrible scenarios that could realistically happen.
Whether the doctors in question acted correctly, I don't know. In fact, I think none of us here has enough information to judge that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

They are also informal methods to help people die who would die anyway, only slower. Helping people to die is as much a doctor's duty as saving lives.

They already do that, Don. So much to further your concern, but it is not just about living and dying. In my view, the doctors have to do what is best for the patient and that is not always keeping him or her alive. I for one find the idea of being kept alive against my will to be one of the most horrible scenarios that could realistically happen.

---

I'm not sure what oath your doctors take but I'm pretty sure ours involves the words "do no harm" and not "we can kill you if you want us to". Your statement sounds like a Hypocritical oath instead of a Hippocratic oath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A. Saturnus

I for one find the idea of being kept alive against my will to be one of the most horrible scenarios that could realistically happen.

---

The "against your will" is important here.
According to the article the woman was still able to communicate, and if she asked for tea it could certainly interpreted in a way that keeping her alive would not be against her will

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I'm pretty sure ours involves the words "do no harm" and not "we can kill you if you want us to".

---

If somebody kept me alive against my expressed will I would consider this as "doing harm"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A. Saturnus

I for one find the idea of being kept alive against my will to be one of the most horrible scenarios that could realistically happen.

---

The "against your will" is important here.
According to the article the woman was still able to communicate, and if she asked for tea it could certainly interpreted in a way that keeping her alive would not be against her will

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I'm pretty sure ours involves the words "do no harm" and not "we can kill you if you want us to".

---

If somebody kept me alive against my expressed will I would consider this as "doing harm"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What was she dying from? Eating or drinking something could have done more harm then good, causing her to puke or cause stomachaches, who knows.

I have no set opinion on euthanasia, I would take each case on it's merits and circumstances.

Euthanesia is not like ordering a beer at the bar, you have to be in insufferable pain, and there should be no medical cure.

---

I actually do. I just thought it prudent to engage a debate, not to post it.

My view is this.

If you wish to die, provided that you are 'compos mentis', then who is there to tell you that you are wrong.

If you are terminally ill, then you should, if you so desire, have a way out from that anguish.

A living will would be desirable, however it should be voluntary.

Criminals serving life sentences excluded. Let the swine rot in gaol.

At the moment the doctors are in a bind.

Just my thoughts.

Quote:

---

But call me old fashioned, I simply do not want the medical establishment to be making arbitrary decisions about who lives and who dies.

---

I think in this instance I'd be glad that the Doctor made the decision rather than me. The idea of having to choose between feeding my mother, and having her choke, and letting her starve to death is so awful that I doubt I'd be able to make any kind of decision at all, let alone an objective one.

I don't imagine the doctor enjoyed doing it, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

........
I'm no doctor, but it may not be that easy.

They are also informal methods to help people die who would die anyway, only slower. Helping people to die is as much a doctor's duty as saving lives.
..........

---

After the comment about putting patients down like animals to the woman's own son and threatening to have the family arrested, I wonder if the doctor was really concerned about the patients wellbeing. Maybe the machine wasn't even broken.

And no, they are unethical and in the case of dehydration - cruel methods to end patients lives.

What seems to be the problem is doctors ending lives against the wishes of their patients. The elderly in the Netherlands are afraid of their doctors snuffing them out after euthanasia was legalised.

Holy cow, an admin double posted! ~:eek:

Has this story been verified? It sure has prompted a strong reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Has this story been verified? It sure has prompted a strong reaction.

---

Well, it was a report from a coroner's court, so I guess it's bona fide. The accusations and statements made however, are by witnesses and therefore may or may not be corroborated as to detail and provenance.

Interesting. For a story that seems to have attracted such interest I was hoping that a follow-up or supplementary article would be soon to follow.