Judge rejects family's right to die case

[Jazzy]

A High Court judge has ruled that a brain damaged woman should not be allowed to die.



In the first case of its kind in this country, Mr Justice Baker said that preservation of life was a fundamental principal of law.



The woman's mother and sister had urged him to allow her to die, describing her pointless existence and saying that she would not have wanted to live in such a state.



But the judge found that the woman, identified only as M, did have some positive experiences and that crucially, there was a reasonable prospect that those experiences could be extended.



In a landmark 43,000 word judgment, he acknowledged that prior to her illness, M had told her family that she would not want to be kept alive in such circumstances, but said that such statements were informal and therefore not legally binding.



The judge added: The factor which does carry substantial weight, in my judgment, is the preservation of life. Although not an absolute rule, the law regards the preservation of life as a fundamental principle.



Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8794013/Judge-rejects-familys-right-to-die-case.html



Question: Do you agree with the judge? Why or why not?

 

[Sinon]

Not really, but not for the reasons people might think.



She wants to die. In her current state (I don't know the limits of her brain damage, but I assume it's quite severe) she will require around-the-clock care from specialists, which cost money. I'd wager that money doesn't come from her family, but from the government.



She wants to die, so let her. Let the money go to someone who can truly use it. Or hey, maybe knock a lump out of that how many trillion dollar debt?

 

[The Dragon Master]

Caroline Harry Thomas, QC, representing the Official Solicitor, said that M could respond to touch and did so.



She added: “There is clear evidence of possible communication using a switch, which was quite stark and very surprising.”



As well as showing “awareness”, M was medically stable and there was “no indication that she is nearing the end of her life, she said.

She hasn't really got a pointless existence if she can still respond to external stimuli.



I do and don't agree with the Judge.

In a landmark 43,000 word judgment, he acknowledged that prior to her illness, M had told her family that she would not want to be kept alive in such circumstances, but said that such statements were informal and therefore not legally binding.

I think it should be optional/possibly mandatory in Law to say what you would want to do if you ever found yourself in this situation or anything similar, so that your family wouldn't have to go to court.

 

[Jazzy]

To prevent something like this happening to me, I have a living will.



A living will usually provides specific directives about the course of treatment that is to be followed by health care providers and caregivers. In some cases a living will may forbid the use of various kinds of burdensome medical treatment. It may also be used to express wishes about the use or foregoing of food and water, if supplied via tubes or other medical devices. The living will is used only if the individual has become unable to give informed consent or refusal due to incapacity. A living will can be very specific or very general. An example of a statement sometimes found in a living will is: “If I suffer an incurable, irreversible illness, disease, or condition and my attending physician determines that my condition is terminal, I direct that life-sustaining measures that would serve only to prolong my dying be withheld or discontinued.”



More specific living wills may include information regarding an individual's desire for such services such as analgesia (pain relief), antibiotics, hydration, feeding, and the use of ventilators or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.



Definition from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_directive