Although DJ's condition is in many respects grim, I am not persuaded that treatment would be futile or overly burdensome, or that there is no prospect of recovery. (a) In DJ's case, the treatments in question cannot be said to be futile, based upon the evidence of their effect so far. (b) Nor can they be said to be futile in the sense that they could only return DJ to a quality of life that is not worth living. (c) Although the burdens of treatment are very great indeed, they have to be weighed against the benefits of a continued existence. (d) Nor can it be said that there is no prospect of recovery: recovery does not mean a return to full health, but the resumption of a quality of life that DJ would regard as worthwhile. The references, noted above, to a cure or a return to the former pleasures of life set the standard unduly high.
When your time comes to die, you probably hope that you will be surrounded by loving family members and friends who will support you and help you leave this earth at peace with one another. Sadly, for 28 year-old SungEun Grace Lee, who is dying in a Long Island hospital, Rather than suffer a slow, miserable death, Grace has requested that doctors take away the life support. After determining that she was mentally competent, doctors at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., prepared to shut off her life support. But her parents did not agree.
A woman left with irreversible brain damage and diagnosed as being in a permanent vegetative state is to be allowed to die with dignity after a judge dismissed reports by two “shocked” therapy assistants that she may have repeatedly whispered the word "die". Mr Justice Roderic Wood, sitting in the Court of Protection in London, ruled that "J", 56, who suffered a catastrophic heart attack in September 2010, is in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) "with no sense of awareness and no prospect of recovery".
The family of a man left in a vegetative state after a heart attack has made an eleventh hour appeal for doctors to do all they can to keep him alive as they await a vital court ruling. Tomorrow, the court of protection in London will be asked to rule in a dispute over whether it is in "the best interests" of the severely brain-damaged man, who is from the Greater Manchester area, to continue to receive life-saving treatment if his condition deteriorates. Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust claim it is not in the best interests to offer the man, known only as L, ventilation or resuscitation if his condition worsens and he suffers "a life-threatening event", such as another heart attack. But his family disagree and say they, not the trust, must be given the right to decide on his care.
When they told my father-in-law the hospital had done all it could, that was not, in the strictest sense, true. There was nothing the doctors could do about the large, inoperable tumor colonizing his insides. But they could have maintained his failing kidneys by putting him on dialysis. They could have continued pumping insulin to control his diabetes. He wore a pacemaker that kept his heart beating regardless of what else was happening to him, so with aggressive treatment they could — and many hospitals would — have sustained a kind of life for a while. But the hospital that treated him offers a protocol called the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient, which was conceived in the 90s at a Liverpool cancer facility as a more humane alternative to the frantic end-of-life assault of desperate measures.
A hospital trust can withhold life-saving treatment from a severely brain-damaged Muslim man if his condition deteriorates, a court has ruled. Doctors argued it would be unfair to resuscitate the patient, known as Mr L, if his condition worsened. His family, of Greater Manchester, said that was against their Muslim faith. At the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Moylan said it would be lawful to withhold treatment as it would not prolong life "in any meaningful way". He added: "It would result in death being characterised by a series of harmful interventions without any realistic prospect of such treatment producing any benefit."
British Columbia’s Supreme Court ruled last week [in Carter v AG Canada] that provisions of the Criminal Code that ban physician-assisted suicide are unconstitutional. Madam Justice Lynn Smith suspended her ruling for one year to give Parliament time to draft new legislation. A government spokeswoman said Ottawa is still reviewing the judgment, but her reminder that Parliament voted not to change the physician-assisted suicide law just two years ago has only added to the sense that there will be an appeal. Ms. Taylor – a 64-year-old who suffers from Lou Gehrig’s disease – was granted a constitutional exemption that permits her to proceed with physician-assisted suicide during the one-year period, though she must meet a number of conditions.
This application concerns AW, a 57-year-old woman who is in a permanent vegetative state. It is made by the NHS Trust responsible for her care, which seeks a declaration that it is lawful and in her best interests to withdraw active medical treatment, including specifically artificial nutrition and hydration, albeit that this will lead to AW's death. The application is supported by AW's family, by all the medical staff who look after her, by the evidence of the expert witnesses who have reported, and by the Official Solicitor on behalf of AW herself.
“The current legal status of assisted dying is inadequate and incoherent...” The Commission on Assisted Dying was set up in September 2010 to consider whether the current legal and policy approach to assisted dying in England and Wales is fit for purpose. In addition to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the legal status quo, the Commission also set out to explore the question of what a framework for assisted dying might look like, if such a system were to be implemented in the UK, and what approach to assisted dying might be most acceptable to health and social care professionals and to the general public.
Most senior doctors in England and Wales feel that rational suicide is possible. There was no association with specialty. Strong religious belief was associated with disagreement, although levels of agreement were still high in people reporting the strongest religious belief. Most doctors who were opposed to physician assisted suicide believed that rational suicide was possible, suggesting that some medical opposition is best explained by other factors such as concerns of assessment and protection of vulnerable patients.
Dignity in Dying has today welcomed MPs' historic decision to back Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) guidelines on assisted suicide, as well as MPs endorsement of further development of end-of-life care via an amendment to the motion. The DPPs guidelines make clear that those who compassionately assist a loved one to die at their request are unlikely to be prosecuted, and that those who maliciously encourage the death of another will feel the full force of the law.
While assisted suicide (AS) is strictly restricted in many countries, it is not clearly regulated by law in Switzerland. This imbalance leads to an influx of people—‘suicide tourists’—coming to Switzerland, mainly to Zurich, for the sole purpose of committing suicide. Political debate regarding ‘suicide tourism’ is taking place in many countries. Swiss medicolegal experts are confronted with these cases almost daily, which prompted our scientific investigation of the phenomenon. The present study has three aims: (1) to determine selected details about AS in the study group (age, gender and country of residence of the suicide tourists, the organisation involved, the ingested substance leading to death and any diseases that were the main reason for AS); (2) to find out the countries from which suicide tourists come and to review existing laws in the top three in order to test the hypothesis that suicide tourism leads to the amendment of existing regulations in foreign countries. ...
The first-hand experiences of physicians from coast to coast vividly illuminated a paucity of available palliative care, a simmering health-care crisis in Canada as the baby boomer generation enters old age. The association's members had come together on Tuesday to debate whether to revise the current CMA policy on euthanasia and assisted death. The session ended with an overwhelming vote — 90 per cent — in favour of an advisory resolution that supports "the right of all physicians, within the bonds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether to provide so-called medical aid in dying." The CMA defines "medical aid in dying" as, essentially, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) is to remain opposed to any change in the law on assisted dying, it has been revealed today following one of the most comprehensive consultations of its members. More than 1,700 members responded to the consultation, which was open from 22 May 2013 until 9 October 2013. College members responded either as individuals, or through one of the RCGP Devolved Councils, one of the RCGP Faculties (local branches), or via a College committee or group. The consultation was conducted through a range of methods, including debates at local meetings, online polls and individual correspondence. Today’s Council debate on the issue ended with a resolution to “maintain the College’s position of opposition to a change in the law on assisted dying”. Seventy seven per cent of RCGP members who submitted individual responses to the consultation expressed the opinion that the College should remain opposed to a change in the law to permit assisted dying. In add
A decision in the Netherlands to approve the euthanasia of a woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease has raised questions over how far mercy killing can apply to patients with dementia. Under Dutch law doctors performing euthanasia must ensure that the patient has made a voluntary and well considered request. This requirement has generally excluded patients with advanced dementia, as they are no longer considered competent to express their wishes. Now the Euthanasia Assessment Committee, to which doctors must report the cases of patients they have helped to die, has made an exception in the case of one woman, emphasising her long history of requesting euthanasia and the degree of communication still possible at her death. It is seen as the first case of euthanasia of a “heavily demented” patient. The Dutch Right to Die Society, which campaigns for euthanasia, supports the case but points out on its website that the woman was “officially incompetent.”