An incredible story

I know I am side tracking a little here, but when a friend’s very elderly mother went into hospital, one of the first questions they were asked was, should we try and resuscitate her. Of course they said they wanted her to be resuscitated and were shocked that they had been asked. This is not euthanasia, they are not ending lives deliberately, but they are letting very seriously ill people die to end their suffering.

People in comas, in a vegetatitive state, on life support have no quality of life, but merely exist as far as we know, but relatives have to apply to a court of law to have the machines switched off. Is that euthanasia or is it again, letting someone die?

What is the difference between letting someone die, and euthanasia in these situations?

So who draws the line then and what illness…cerebral palsy perhaps? ex meningoccal septacaemia children (blind deaf and prones to fits) etc etc- quality of life is nil (according to those on here) so lets just send em of to sleep cos it suages our consciences and makes us feel better cos its the “right thing to do”-

Slayer, the question is one that has been around for a very long time, at what point do you “do the right thing”. And, at the moment, the line is drawn by the legal system in this country. I think it is perfectly acceptable to pose this question, and it will carry on being questioned by the medical profession, and the legal system. It is not going down the route that Hitler posed, you are being extremist.

All life is precious, but I cannot imagine how it must be to watch someone you love suffering day after day after day and not be able to do anything to help.

@slayer wrote:

Yep, you’re all right- I must have got it so wrong

This practise, the “euthasnia” of severely disabled infants (and adults) was the ethos used by Adolf Hitler to support his creation of the Aryan race

I wouldnt suggest anyone on here would prescribe following a Nazi doctrine but judging by the response here, it obviously has its supporters

So who draws the line then and what illness…cerebral palsy perhaps? ex meningoccal septacaemia children (blind deaf and prones to fits) etc etc- quality of life is nil (according to those on here) so lets just send em of to sleep cos it suages our consciences and makes us feel better cos its the “right thing to do”-

– perhaps we could sterilise known carriers (ie downs adults etc) to ensure “they” don’t reproduce

And Kevin…if you read YOUR post again…you even have the audacity to ask whether murdering a child…sorry, putting it out of its misery (in your eyes) is really murder? (3rd line in case you’d forgotten)

Its a “non existence” in your eyes but NOT to the parents and not to the child

(Sorry Slayer, but you mentioned both “Adolf Hitler” AND “Nazis” in the same post … you lose the debate !! …….. Ed)

what a liberal
for once i agree with old big ED

@bat wrote:

I can see your point Kevin but you can,t go around euthenising people simply because they are disabled, either mentally or physically. Euthenasia for terminally ill patients who haven,t a hope in hell of getting better, and are going to die in agony is another subject entirely, (and yes I do know exactly what I,m talking about there).
However Slayer is also right in that we havn,t a clue what this lady is going through. It must be stressful beyond belief for her. It was very brave of her to publically admit her feelings, feelings that I,m sure countless other parents of equally disabled children have had, but have been to scared to admit. She has my total sympathy.

What u said about euthanasia for terminally ill patients who have no chance of getting better a different subject and im all for that but anyway, when a child is so severely disabled as u described in another post that child has no quality of life and as u said is constantly crying and screaming (why) how much pain is this child in that they cant communicate with you to tell you? i cant totally see an arguement for euthanasia in extreme circumstances this child clearly suffering but we are ready to make this child continue their suffering for as long as the rest of their lives are with no hope of any real improvement, the same as a terminally ill patient just a whole lot longer, i would like to think if i was in that situation terminally ill i could be euthanised i have seen suffering that is beyond humane because it is illegal in this country and if i was able i would like to be put out of my misery 100% certain, so the point im trying to make if a child is THAT extremely disabled isn’t it fairer (im not talking just sensory disability or temporary discomfort here im talking severly disabled with no let up ) to have that as an option ? fortunately very few children are as severly disabled that they have NO life at all but for those in constant pain with no real quality for me it would seem the kindest thing. after all i know its an old arguement but u wouldnt let ur animal suffer in such a way so why should a human being, if it isnt just for our own conscience of making that decision.
That said it’s a difficult decision to make early on in a childs life as until they start growing and developing u dont know if there will be mild improvement but anyway i think in very extreme circumstances it should be an option.

@slayer wrote:

I must really be having a feckin blind Sunday cos I still cannot see an argument for euthanasia and still view the deliberate killing of a disabled child today no different to Germany in the 1930’s.

Re read the original article again (as posted by Bat)- read the nightmare the mother went through for years and then read these two paragraphs at the end

“Those precious few moments when we think he is free from pain, and maybe ‘enjoying’ the feel of the wind on his cheeks mean everything to us.

What people forget when they look at Noah and say how sorry they are, is that we’re not. We’ve got a son we love and however different his life is – it is his life and a valid one“

Now again tell me what point is being raised here by those suggesting this child should be put down like a dog?

the question is how much suffering do you allow
i wouldnt let anyone suffer
the hitler refrences are stupid
i dont think your stupid
but who knows maybe you are

i can see where ur coming from slayer and i dont agree with euthanasia willy nilly but maybe through a proper process with court approval on each individual case it should be allowed for the terminally ill as i said i would welcome it if i was in that position,and those that are severely disabled that are in constant pain and completely unaware and truly do not have any quality of life i can see an arguement for that also, as they could be in alot of ways going through the same suffering that the terminally ill are just for a whole lot longer but i agree if u get some moments no matter how few of reprieve a split moment of shared joy thats enough against it , but if u dont get those moments what then ? if they are pretty much in a vegetative state how is that different to someone on a life support apart from they are breathing alone, though some cant even do that.
i dont think it should be regular practise or something taken lightly and each case should be on an individual basis.