Could this ever happen in England?

Uniscots97

zaksmum wrote: »

The update to his notes said "Family refusing to agree to pureed diet".

I could go on. My poor, proud,strong, hardworking and dignified father was reduced to a pitiful pathetic shadow of himself. When he asked for help to go to the toilet, nurses said "Just do it in the bed" and he physically couldn't.

I could write a book...but it won't bring my father back.

Kind of makes you dread getting old and frail, doesn't it? Or is that just me?

It's not just you, it was us as well. Told we were interfering and that my Grandfather wouldn't survive, we persevered and guess what he came home and was there for 2 years before a fall and then back into the same hospital where he died alone.... and please don't get me started on his carers .....which were paid for......a few were nice but the rest were more interested in coming in filling out their diary telling my poor grandparents about their latest drunken night out and going away without doing any work!

I also had very poor treatment a few years ago, with my local hospital 'missing' something that was staring them in the face. I knew something was wrong and asked to go private and get a full medical (had bupa cover with the job I had then) and guess what they found out what was wrong and it was serious. The consultant was horrified that the NHS had missed the problem and said he was at a loss how anyone could have missed it from the scans I'd already had only a few days previous.

warehouse

My Wife's father was stopped food and liquids after being in hospital for the 4th time due to his severe dementia. He wasn't fed or given fluid and died a bl**dy horrible death. I don't know if my Wifes Mother really knew what was happening, but they gave her the choking story as way of explanation. I stood back as it wasn't my fight to get involved in, but I saw clearly what the hospital were doing, which was eutheazia in any other way shape or form. I regret to this day not getting involved.

If the same situation happens with my own parents then if I think the hospital is doing this to free up a bed then I simply won't let it happen.

Euthenasia is happening every day in every hospital in this country, and you'd better believe it.

ohreally

babymoo wrote: »

I can't see that happening here though, what a horrible thought.

It happens every day.

You'd have to be extremely naive if you didn't realise this.

HeatherintheHills

Person_one wrote: »

Its illegal to give them something with the intention of killing them.

Quite, but hastening death by withdrawing nutrition and hydration is perfectly legal. Slower and far less humane than a diamorphine overdose, hydration withdrawal is euthanasia but in a legal form. So that is ok then? No it isn't.

If the time comes when hydration is to be denied then a lethal dose of drugs would be quicker and far more humane. What is the difference between a health professional effectively ordering death by dehydration or enabling death by overdose? If that time has been reached then the more humane method should be the right of the patient, something they can request when they know they are in their final days. Currently the difference is what the law says can and cannot be done. The law, as we all know, doesn't always get things right.

I've seen death by both methods. I know which was "legal" and I know which was the kinder death. I definitely know which I would prefer when my time comes.

Mojisola

warehouse wrote: »

Euthenasia is happening every day in every hospital in this country, and you'd better believe it.

But because it's illegal, the person has to go through a slow, unpleasant period of dying instead of an honest injection.

HeatherintheHills

Mojisola wrote: »

But because it's illegal, the person has to go through a slow, unpleasant period of dying instead of an honest injection.

Spot on. And it is cruel.

Person_one

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

Quite, but hastening death by withdrawing nutrition and hydration is perfectly legal. Slower and far less humane than a diamorphine overdose, hydration withdrawal is euthanasia but in a legal form. So that is ok then? No it isn't.

If the time comes when hydration is to be denied then a lethal dose of drugs would be quicker and far more humane. What is the difference between a health professional effectively ordering death by dehydration or enabling death by overdose? If that time has been reached then the more humane method should be the right of the patient, something they can request when they know they are in their final days. Currently the difference is what the law says can and cannot be done. The law, as we all know, doesn't always get things right.

I've seen death by both methods. I know which was "legal" and I know which was the kinder death. I definitely know which I would prefer when my time comes.

Did you even read the rest of my post after the bit you quoted?

poet123

warehouse wrote: »

My Wife's father was stopped food and liquids after being in hospital for the 4th time due to his severe dementia. He wasn't fed or given fluid and died a bl**dy horrible death. I don't know if my Wifes Mother really knew what was happening, but they gave her the choking story as way of explanation. I stood back as it wasn't my fight to get involved in, but I saw clearly what the hospital were doing, which was eutheazia in any other way shape or form. I regret to this day not getting involved.

If the same situation happens with my own parents then if I think the hospital is doing this to free up a bed then I simply won't let it happen.

Euthenasia is happening every day in every hospital in this country, and you'd better believe it.

I was much wiser the second time around too. I fought them tooth and nail when my mother was dying, to no avail in the end because they left her alone, she wandered out of bed, fell and they tried to cover it up.

Fortunately (or actually, unfortunately as she was against PM's) as she wasn't expected to die so soon they did a PM and I insisted on an out of the area Coroner, the wound on her head from the fall was listed as a factor in her death.

Of course, she would have died from the cancer, and possibly in the same unpleasant manner as my father so we did not pursue the negligence issue, but we did get an apology from the trust for the attempted cover up of the fall.

I could write a book, and judging from the other stories on here the contents would resonate with many.

WolfSong2000

Person_one wrote: »

There are lots of ways that legalised euthanasia could be abused though, that's the danger and why it isn't. Its not because anybody wants people to suffer.

If euthanasia was legalised I can see a lot of older people feeling like they had a duty to end their lives to avoid being a burden, or unscrupulous relatives (the type we see on these boards trying desperately to avoid losing a penny of their inheritance to care home fees) putting pressure on them. Society already places hardly any importance on good care of the elderly, do you think that would improve if euthanasia was legal?

I realise the potential for abuse, which is why I have thought about my position re: euthanasia for many years. The way *I* personally see it is that if a person is terminally ill and the quality of life has deteriorated to such a point where they can no longer enjoy life, then euthanasia should be an option. It is now, in the sense that doctors make a conscious decision to withdraw food and IV fluids - it's just passive euthanasia, rather than proactive. What I would like to see is if doctors feel that the point has been reached where it is necessary to do this, they perform a quicker, much more humane "proactive" euthanasia so the person can end their life with dignity and without any potential for suffering.

I do agree we have become much more "detached" from death than we used to be, and this is changing our perceptions, but this isn't the first time in history people have changed their perceptions of death and dying - same thing happened in medieval Europe. People suddenly became much more "aware" of death - this is shown in literature, artwork, burial practices, etc - this is where we get danse macabre and memento mori from...so, perceptions do change through time.

WolfSong2000

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

Quite, but hastening death by withdrawing nutrition and hydration is perfectly legal. Slower and far less humane than a diamorphine overdose, hydration withdrawal is euthanasia but in a legal form. So that is ok then? No it isn't.

If the time comes when hydration is to be denied then a lethal dose of drugs would be quicker and far more humane. What is the difference between a health professional effectively ordering death by dehydration or enabling death by overdose? If that time has been reached then the more humane method should be the right of the patient, something they can request when they know they are in their final days. Currently the difference is what the law says can and cannot be done. The law, as we all know, doesn't always get things right.

I've seen death by both methods. I know which was "legal" and I know which was the kinder death. I definitely know which I would prefer when my time comes.

You've stated the point I was trying to make much more eloquently than I could - thank you.

As to the poster who was asking about what would have been preferable...with other relatives the nurses have shown the familyhow to use the morphine drip when it's pretty obvious that "the time has come", so essentially one can just keep upping the morphine...some doctors do this as well, to "keep the patient pain free"...does this, but also kills them, but much more humanely than withdrawing fluids,, which can take days.