My husband was recently in hospital with heart trouble and while waiting for the medics to come up with a diagnosis we had a short conversation. If you flatline what do you want the doc to do? DNR. OK, I said. He's home now with a bucket of pills and several appointments.
Pleased to hear your husband is doing well, and I'm sure many DNR mandates never get acted on. But having the option there is a good thing, IMV. It lets a patient and their family know that if their heart stops, they will be allowed to die peacefully and not be subjected to what can be a fairly brutal procedure with little real hope of a good outcome. It saves anguish for the medical team as well.
It's not a problem, it's science, as long as the scientists are speaking from a neutral point of view, based on presented data and as unbiased as they can get. The new report on AMOC has just come out.
Political spin from newspapers is another thing.
It's a problem for the layman trying to get an understanding of a situation when there is no clear consensus of the level of the problem or the most effective way of tackling that problem.
To understand it, you need to focus on the money. Those set to make billions from wide-spread adoption of green initiatives ramp up the doom-laden scenarios. Those who make billions from the status quo, ramp up the "it's all a hoax" narrative. Media outlets obliging give airtime to whichever side their owners back.
It is just the latest chapter in the playbook of the wealthy elite. It may crash the planet, but if we are relying on those in the thrall of riches to do the right thing, we will have a long wait.
One of the biggest issues with Assisted Death in the UK, has been that the medical profession have always been against it. However this view is now changing and polls of drs. suggest there may soon be a majority in favour. When this happens there will probably be a shift in governmental thinking.
@punkdoc Yes I had heard the same. Understandable in a way if they are convinced that they are supposed to be saving life rather than ending it. Not a simple decision for many of them I imagine but it's encouraging to know that attitudes are gradually changing. Thanks for the update .
One of the biggest issues with Assisted Death in the UK, has been that the medical profession have always been against it. However this view is now changing and polls of drs. suggest there may soon be a majority in favour. When this happens there will probably be a shift in governmental thinking.
@punkdoc Yes I had heard the same. Understandable in a way if they are convinced that they are supposed to be saving life rather than ending it. Not a simple decision for many of them I imagine but it's encouraging to know that attitudes are gradually changing. Thanks for the update .
This is really OT but my 2 pence ...
My father was a GP and he has always asserted that AD is a gross violation of the Drs oath to preserve life. Its also a violation of the 'contract of life' to which we are born, whatever course that may take. His concerns were the precedent it sets and where it can take us once the process is legalised. Under relatively peaceful times the assumption is it would be adopted compassionately, however under a more opressive regime this could be used immorally to end the lives of people who are deemed by the state, or state mandated Drs, to be a drain on society. This has happened in living memory don't forget! A number of my fathers patients in the 1970's were people who escaped such acts. AD is also very cheap, considerably more cheap than keeping people alive who have chronic and acute conditions. This is ripe for politicization.
You should also consider the research; I listened to a piece on Radio 4 recently which discussed BMA research that found whilst Drs are marginally in favour of AD (below 60%) they are overwhlemingly against being the ones who administer the final act - so who would actually do it?
Edit - how the hell did an AMOC thread get here! I guess you could make the tenuous argument we're assisting our own demise by contributing to climate change
My understanding is that in the UK drs before the 20th C often compassionately ended suffering at end of life and this was quietly accepted as part of the role.
It is interesting to look at countries that have had legalised AD for a long time now.
"AD is also very cheap, considerably more cheap than keeping people alive".
I see this angle emerging in discussion online at the moment, esp in countries that don't have a welfare state and are at the mercy of insurance companies. People fear clocking up huge med bills. It's all certainly a complicated debate.
Doctors end life now: by withholding treatment, not resuscitating, increasing pain relief, etc, BUT, assisted dying is meant for use in a slightly different context.
It is now the norm in many other civilised countries.
As to who would actually carry out, that is another matter.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
Posts
It's a problem for the layman trying to get an understanding of a situation when there is no clear consensus of the level of the problem or the most effective way of tackling that problem.
It is now the norm in many other civilised countries.
As to who would actually carry out, that is another matter.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border