online today!zmountainman Blog Comments (7,852)

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Cervatilla, I know almost what you mean as I had a really bad dose of flu this year & basically lost about 3 days, though as far as I know I did get up to feed the animals, but what you're saying rather lends itself to my point, if the body has shut down & knows nothing what's the point of starving it to death? I don't want to end up as dehydrated pile of bones, getting smaller by the day.

Your body should have rejected the chicken on principle

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Molly, well that's sort of what I'm suggesting, the details of how it would work could be easily arranged but it would need to be much quicker than the current system that as Biff says takes forever & the patient has normally died anyway before they hear the case, that's just passing the buck as far as I;m concerned.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Biff, if you take things through the normal court system the lawyers could have died before they make a decision. Once the legal precedent is set all a judge would be doing is checking the criteria had been met & basically rubber stamping it, the time is taken when they have to hear legal arguments in court, that wouldn't be the case here as the law would already be in place imo.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

JJ/Molly, as I said earlier, all would have to be in agreement, that means more than one doctor, the family, plus also I suggested the high court, who can when the occasion calls for it move at speed, to check all was order & that all are agreed.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Nam yes I do recall that blog, just, it's sad that money has to be even a consideration at a time like that, but seems to be the world we live in
One could probably take this a step further looking at who was to blame for the illness in the first place, as an example they carried on poisoning people with asbestos for years after knowing it would kill thousands, all it seems to protect the bottom line, you can bet the factory owners never went near the place.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Bear, doesn't bear thinking about (no pun intended there), I'd also hate not being in control.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

JJ, I think it has to be joint decision with the family, left to doctors that would be both unfair on them & unsafe where hospital budgets could come into the equation imo.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Biff, now if one has an inquiring mind one might ask where they're getting the info for how long, hospices aren't going to say to upset relatives "oh your loved one could cling on for weeks" , far more likely to say a few days, this could be the 5 a day vegetables all over again, no science involved just sounds good.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Biff, first constrictive thing you've said all day

I can't help it if google put up the article with the longest time first, I didn't cross check all, the papers obviously had the same result when they did it this morning

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Bear, also been my experience to be wary of doctors, but there are some great ones out there, trouble is with getting old, you find a good one & they go & retire on you when you need them the most, dentists as well.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Mimi, here to keep you going till the is baked

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Biff, I didn't guess, I did look it up & the suggested max was 3 weeks in the article I read, one would assume someone on there deathbed would die quicker, but seems the opposite is true as they're kept in a controlled temperature environment and not using excess water by moving etc.
Even if it's 3 days to a week does that make a difference to the argument?
I'm sorry you feel the media is just there to upset you but I thought both were pretty balanced in providing the facts, just that on the length of time it takes they read the same article as me & not yours.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Sea, A YOUTUBE VID now I know I'm being sold a pup

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Sea, that's another side of the debate & one I can't really comment on, being an atheist, but equally important to those who aren't

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Wen, yes all good thanks

Me too, rather not go through some long drawn out process with no possible good result, but we don't often get a choice on that unfortunately.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Deedee, you're forgetting what it was like to be 18, a view on everything & probably none that will last till 40 .

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

UnFayzed, indeed I was waiting for a comment about that, though in the UK they'd normally be covered by the NHS I still wouldn't trust a doctor alone to make that decision, they have budgets to stick to.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Molly, ok well you're easily pleased, for me life with no chocolate is no life at all.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Molly, if you sit on the fence you know where you'll get splinters

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Molly, you're still evading the question, starve to death or lethal injection?

RE: Boatload of Africans storm beach in Spain

Although true in essence it doesn't tell the whole or real story. Most of the boats never make it far as land, that youtube vid is years old, whilst every now & again one gets through most are intercepted by the coast guard, 500 in one day last week, they are then heath checked, processed, and the illegals sent back, the rest with a legal right allowed to stay. As Molly said that fence isn't in Europe but Africa, all they get access to is a small town, were they're rounded up & the vast majority sent back.
I've only ever heard of one illegal who made it into the mountains round here having avoided detection from the police helicopters, and that was 10 years ago.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Deedee, one would hope by age say 18 most should be able to make that decision, it wouldn't be irreversible as I see it if you changed your mind at any time.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Molly, I think a lot of us feel that way, but how you go is the question, when your relatives read this blog to get your instructions you want them to be clear instructions.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Biff, I'm struggling to see what your view is, for the sake of argument I think we're assuming the patient is never doing anything again & it's just how they go we're taking about. You have kept alive as long as possible, starved to death (have now checked & the max is said to be 3 weeks though normally shorter), or instantly dead by some form of injection.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Deedee, no it's not something I'd want to make a decision on, and has to be said unless it was some totally incurable illness & 100% no chance of recovery I wouldn't make it.

I think it may come down to individuals having to make a declaration as to how they're to be treated in such circumstances, similar or even added to organ donation forms/cards, that way the decision/responsibility is removed from doctor or family.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

LJ ( and Biff) this is from the article -

"The ruling will effect up to 24,000 patients with permanent vegetative state (PVS) and minimally conscious state (MCS), meaning they can now be effectively starved and dehydrated to death if the medical staff and relatives agree that this is in their “best interests”.

People with PVS (awake but not aware) and MCS (awake but only intermittently or partially aware) can breathe without ventilators, but need to have food and fluids by tube (clinically assisted nutrition and hydration or CANH).

These patients are not imminently dying and with good care can live for many years. Some may even regain awareness. But if CANH is withdrawn, then they will die from dehydration and starvation within two or three weeks."

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

TR, an interesting point and who am I to argue, but that's never stopped me in the past. I don't see why there should be any pain attached to euthanasia, but then I'm just going on what happens when animals are put down. Seems to me it should be easily possible to make it completely painless? If that's the case then how can starving to death be less painful? You may by now be starting to wonder if I have any confidence in what doctors have to say, my answer to that would be as they can't decide between themselves on whether Aspirin is good or bad as a treatment why would they be any better faced with something more complex?

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

LJ, I don't think this ruling really applies in cases like that, this is for people who are supposedly already gone but being kept alive artificially. The doctors assume they feel no pain, whether that's true or not I've no idea, but equally I'm not that confident they do either.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Biff, there will always be cases where there is no consensus between doctors & family, some would sooner visit there loved one daily & see them visibly shrink a bit each day as water disappeared from there body, I'm not suggesting compulsion here, but in the many cases where everyone is agreed, or the patient themselves left an instruction before they became so ill, then a quick painless end could be brought about, how many times have we seen people dragged into court barely alive & wishing to be dead, only to be told it's not possible, then having to go to Switzerland to get the result they desperately want.

You wouldn't do it to a dog!

Fly, that's an interesting point & I know cats can actually kill themselves when they've had enough, but that's a quick process & one I don't think humans are capable, we seem to hang on till the last breath.