Showing posts with label right to die. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right to die. Show all posts

Friday, November 26, 2021

Bobby Schindler: Health Care's March Toward Death


On September 6th, 2021, Jean-Pierre Adams died at the age of 73. You would have never heard of Adams if not that he was a former French professional soccer player. However, what made Adams’ death newsworthy was that his extraordinary wife Bernadette dedicated her life to caring for Jean-Pierre when he sustained a brain injury after knee surgery complications.

Jean-Pierre never regained full consciousness and for 39 years he was dependent on his wife for care. From the day Bernadette brought Jean-Pierre home she was at his bedside, never at any time contemplating ending his life by removing his feeding tube. She taught the world a lesson of unconditional love.

Sadly, we don’t hear enough of these stories. Certainly, there are families who are caring for the “Jean-Pierre’s”, but the reality is that the media – and more troubling – our health care systems, are inculcating the public into their earthly worldview, fostering a culture that accepts the denial of life-affirming care, even if the “care” is ordinary – food and water – based on a person’s utility, as was in the case of my sister, Terri Schiavo.

In fact, it was 18 years ago on October 21st, 2003, when the Florida Legislature passed a bill granting the governor, Jeb Bush, the power to reinsert Terri’s feeding tube after it had been removed for six days. That day marked the beginning of my family’s experience with corporate media and how they would launder the truth of Terri’s situation and condition with “right to die” propaganda.

Full Article and Source:
Health Care's March Toward Death

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Court grants woman right to die after 'losing her sparkle'

Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

A 50-year-old woman who fears that the passing of her youth and beauty means the end of everything that “sparkles” in life has been granted permission to die by the court of protection.

In a highly unusual judgment published this week, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust has been told that the unnamed woman has the capacity to make up her own mind and is entitled to refuse the life-saving kidney dialysis treatment she requires.

The decision includes a detailed account of the lifestyle of C, as the woman is known, describing her as “impulsive”, “self-centred”, heavy drinking and four times married.

But the judge, Mr Justice MacDonald, explained that the principle was the same for any patient. “The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient,” he said in his court of protection decision.

“This position reflects the value that society places on personal autonomy in matters of medical treatment and the very long established right of the patient to choose to accept or refuse medical treatment from his or her doctor.

“Where a patient refuses life-saving medical treatment the court is only entitled to intervene in circumstances where the court is satisfied that the patient does not have the mental capacity to decide whether or not to accept or refuse such treatment.” Intervention, he said, was not required in this case.

MacDonald continued: “C is a person to whom the epithet ‘conventional’ will never be applied … C has led a life characterised by impulsive and self-centred decision-making without guilt or regret. [She] has had four marriages and a number of affairs and has, it is said, spent the money of her husbands and lovers recklessly before moving on when things got difficult or the money ran out.

“She has, by their account, been an entirely reluctant and at times completely indifferent mother to her three caring daughters. Her consumption of alcohol has been excessive and, at times, out of control … In particular, it is clear that during her life C has placed a significant premium on youth and beauty and on living a life that, in C’s words, ‘sparkles’.”

Having been diagnosed with breast cancer, she had taken an overdose with alcohol. She did not die but caused herself such extensive kidney damage that she required dialysis – which she now refused to undergo.
The judge added: “My decision that C has capacity to decide whether or not to accept dialysis does not, and should not prevent her treating doctors from continuing to seek to engage with C in an effort to persuade her of the benefits of receiving life-saving treatment in accordance with their duty to C as their patient.

“My decision does no more than confirm that in law C is entitled to refuse the treatment offered to her for her benefit by her dedicated treating team. Nothing I have said prevents them from continuing to offer that treatment.”

MacDonald analysed evidence from psychiatrists and medics, and from one of the woman’s daughters. One daughter told him that her mother’s life had “to all appearances” been fairly glamorous. She said her mother did not want to be “poor”, “ugly” or “old”.

“She has said the most important thing for her is her sparkly lifestyle,” said the daughter. “She kept saying she doesn’t want to live without her sparkle and she thinks she has lost her sparkle.”

The daughter said family members would devastated if her mother died, but added: “We think it is a horrible decision. We don’t like the decision at all. But I cannot get away from the fact that she understands it.”

Full Article & Source:
Court grants woman right to die after 'losing her sparkle'