Annlee, thanks, and that's not a phrase I heard before
I agree being neighbours rather than living together could have its own problems, which is why the idea of something like a date night is really useful
Z, the jar system dates back to times when 50p bought a romantic candlelit dinner and a taxi home
There are murders and manky bodies so I hadn't been bothering with the background couple but turns out at least three readers were ignoring the murders and want to know what's happening to the second-time-round couple. Go figure. Now I have to work it out
Map, hello lovely, and I do miss Sunday mornings. I do.
And ta, any chance you could pop to the forum and throw in an anonymous vote? The votes are building up nicely and proving unexpectedly interesting - women seem to be expecting a lot more activity than men
KN, both have jobs, sometimes pressured but normally not, and any kids (they don't actually have) would have been grown and gone anyway.
That job thing can often be the biggest problem, 'I can't, I have a big meeting tomorrow I have to get a good night's sleep' - another reason I'm thinking the date night thing is a good idea. Even if it sometimes needs to be shifted to another night, it doesn't get forgotten
And in a stressful situation, it is a reminder of focus
Definitely bearing 'date night' in mind, good idea if only because real life and issues and little interruptions can take over. Hands up anyone ever been in a relationship where you think back and suddenly realize you can't remember the last time things got romantic? (not necessarily sweaty - specifically romantic)
Molly, agreed. When the source is permanently to hand, easy to slip into the 'not tonight, leave it until tomorrow' and the tomorrows can get further apart
Haha TR this isn't one of those books, this is background to the ongoing story but yup, about twice a week ties in with his previous lifestyle, so if you think that's credible, thanks!
(One bloke I asked about an ongoing relationship said twice a month was doing well)
Molly, ta, and the main question is how often. And I do know I might as well ask how long is a piece of string!
Put it another way. If she was distracted by a financial crisis, and not in the mood, how long before he stopped being patiently supportive and started feeling a little restless... I know, gets complicated, that's why I didn't put that in the blog.
Nam in the UK (and I think, but could be wrong, is SA) hospices are free, they are charity-run. So keeping someone alive for profit is not an issue.
Also, a feature of hospices is that pretty much anything you want, you can have. Drugs for pain, food if you can face it, water / wine / Scotch by the bucket (although the family might have to bring that in) but equally you don't have to have anything you don't want, nothing will be forced on you. So someone choosing not to eat will never be forced to eat. Your poor friend had a far longer run than would be normal .
Another version of the story - far less exciting and dramatic a version than the Express, of course - made the point this ruling was triggered by how slow the decision process has been. . The case was accelerated through to the UK’s highest court because of his condition, but he died before it could be heard. The court nonetheless listened to legal arguments because, it said, this was an important issue that needed to be resolved.
Well, anyone who can live without hydration for 3 to 4 weeks is a medical miracle. I would hate to be kept in some kind of earthly purgatory but I guess if stacking up breathing time is more important than quality of life, the ruling can and will be ignored by the families of the living dead, and the living dead will shuffle on their weary way. Oh, they can't shuffle. Or do anything but lie in bed stuck with tubes. But they can carry on doing that.
That's exactly why I called this ruling humane. You cannot be serious, imagining anyone can pop into supreme court, say listen this patient has had it can we let go and the judge says sure, sure.
WEEKS to get the court booking, get second medical opinions, check all the family are on board, THEN sure sure. Maybe.
Oh, and there's no question of lasting weeks once the life-prolonging care stops. A healthy strong human being can survive up to a week without any liquid intake, in cool conditions. The average is 3 to 4 days. Someone who was being kept alive, whose body is long past storing up reserves, would last about 2 days max.
And note 'the body is long past storing reserves'. The body has given up. Time for medicine to give up too.
If a patient wakes up after 2 days and says hey I'm starving here, why isn't anyone feeding me, you have to hope the authorities would decide to stop withholding.
That lethal injection, by the way, there will always be relatives and friends who would consider the person who gave the injection a murderer. Natural death is the only option for humans.
Molly, they are incredible, I don't know how they cope in such an emotionally charged situation, and even do more, make it bearable for everyone concerned.
I actually think this is a humane decision. Getting legal permission can take weeks and be held up by arguments that will likely appear on the comments on this blog.
It could be that you have never seen anyone in a full-on PVS or MCS.
Do you know how a Hospice works? Terminally ill patients are moved there to die in quiet and pleasant surroundings, their comfort a priority, but food and drink is only given if asked for. It isn't forced on the patient.
Any man whipping any woman with a belt whether he used it for other ladies or kept it specially for her is not a man worth wasting a thought on. Can he handle a real woman? Who CARES? But the answer is of course no. A real woman would not be hanging around for a whipping.
Another penny in the jar (a research question)
Annlee, thanks, and that's not a phrase I heard beforeI agree being neighbours rather than living together could have its own problems, which is why the idea of something like a date night is really useful