Chantal Sébire dead

[Cat]

I've only just seen this.  http://www.24heures.ch/pages/home/24_heures/l_actu/monde/monde_detail/(contenu)/208082

Suffering from a painful, disfiguring and incurable illness, and after having her request for euthanasia rejected by the French courts on Tuesday, Chantal Sébire was found dead at her home yesterday.

 

 

[Clair]

To me, the whole shamble has been and still is totally inhuman.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/20/wtumour120.xml

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/03/19/chantal-sebire-est-morte_1025235_3224.html#ens_id=1022062

[MrCanary]

Poor lady. I hope she is resting in peace now.

Mel

[raindog]

Looks like she finally got on with it herself......

[JSA Aude]

How dreadfully sad and painful for the poor lady, may she be at peace now.

[Tressy]

[quote user="Clair"]To me, the whole shamble has been and still is totally inhuman.[/quote]

How much pain must she have been in? She couldn't take enough morphine to touch it, due to the side effects.

In the link Cat gave it suggests the only option doctors could legally offer her, was to put her into an artificial coma.  I like to think I would chose the option she did, ultimately, rather than put my family through an extended 'living death' scenario. Brave woman.

[Cat]

I can't even begin to imagine how much courage it must have taken for her to face the TV cameras throughout her ordeal, when she was plainly distressed at showing the terrible disfiguring effects of her tumour. To have to go through all of that, only to be turned down, and then to find the courage to take the final step that it seems she took, must have been terribly hard on both her and her family.

I can only hope that she didn't suffer at the end, and that she died the peaceful and dignified death that she had been hoping would be allowed to her, but that the state had denied her.

 

[Fay]

I am so shocked. We would give a beloved pet better consideration than that, and they can't tell us what they want - she could and did.

[just john]

[quote user="Cat"]

I can only hope that she didn't suffer at the end, and that she died the peaceful and dignified death that she had been hoping would be allowed to her, but that the state had denied her.

[/quote]

I can't tell you if she did, I didn't know her; but I can tell you from personal experience that that sort of Medieval end is terribly hard for the woman sufferering. . . and the whole family don't just grieve after but continue to suffer the agony of it all, it is not an easy memory. Worse is the taboo about it, I was relieved to see your discussion, there are threads for all sorts of trivial things but Death is not included, Does no one feel the need to discuss death, it must surely affect many on this forum.

[Christine Animal]

http://www.orange.fr/bin/frame.cgi?u=http%3A//actu.orange.fr/articles/a-la-une/Chantal-Sebire-a-absorbe-un-barbiturique-a-dose-mortelle-selon-le-procureur.html

 

[Cat]

Thanks for that link Christine,  Assuming that Pentobarbital is the same drug that is used to put animals to sleep, it's good to know that she wouldn't have suffered at the end.  Luckily the question of who supplied her with the drug remains unanswered, I wouldn't like to see anyone prosecuted for helping her.

[Linus]

May she rest in peace.. This is really a piece of saddening news

[Clair]

Another terminally ill person has written to the French President and to the Health Minister, asking to be allowed to be assisted to commit suicide.

The article explains that although she does not want to kill herself in the near future, she does not want to become a vegetable and wants "free will as regards her death".

"...There comes a time when life is no longer life, but an irreversible agony.[...]It is a concept of dignity and the right to dispose of one's life and hence one's death."

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/societe/20080401.OBS7736/une_jeune_femme_demande_a_son_tour_le_droit_de_mourir.html?idfx=RSS_notr

[Pads]

John is right we dont talk about death in a healthy way, yet its some thing we all have to face for our loved ones and our selves. Its the not knowing what is going to happen that we fear the most. My heart goes out to her and her family I know how hard watching some one die is .  

[Frenchie]

Yes, I also assume John is right..

I failed  my nurse competitive exam when I was 18 because of the subject of euthanasia..........

I had wanted to be a nurse since I was a very little girl, and I was very interested in the topics of pain and death.

Things related to the relief of pain have evolved a lot since then, I do hope one day I won't be considered as a "criminal", as the head of the school told me [blink], just because I had said I thought when there is REALLY no hope of healing, one should be entitled to choose when it s time to go ..

I had succeeded in all the aspects of the exam but only this interview went wrong .......

Of course this is a very difficult subject and I think it should be strictly regulated.

[Wendy]

Yes Frenchie, it is a very difficult subject. But does 'regulated' come under the heading of 'condoned'...? I have trouble with the comparison between animal pain and human suffering...should human beings simply be 'put down' as we do animals? animal suffering is heartbreaking, yes, but in my mind a human life is worth so much more than that of a dog or cat. On the same note, why do we not offer animals options in pain relief rather than instant euthanasia? because even though human suffering can be unbearable, ending a human life means so much more than ending that of a pet.

I can understand in a way why you did not pass 'that' aspect of your exam. The job of a nurse is to 'nurse'. To allow your beliefs to affect your work could be detrimental to your patient's well-being.

Some years back I went into labour at 18 weeks with my first baby - in 1984 such babies simply did not survive being born at such an early stage. My doctor, my own family GP who had cared for me since I was 11 years old, decided to let things progress 'according to nature'. The baby was born and died, as he naturally would have. Nothing would have saved him had he even breathed just once. I will never forget one of the nurses, one of those 'right to life' types, shouting across me at my doctor in the delivery room that he should have 'cut me open and got IT out earlier on to give IT a chance'. My doctor had acted in MY best interest; the nurse on the other hand was acting according to HER own beliefs, despite what would have been best for me. My doctor had refused to butcher me in order to deliver a baby that would never have survived in any case. He did the right thing.

I think this is where you went wrong in your exam. You keep your beliefs about life and death, particularly OTHER PEOPLES life and death, to yourself.

Having said that...I had earlier worked for my doctor in his office and knew how he 'assisted' several of his sick and elderly patients in the local nursing home to 'sleep peacefully' through their final sufferings. I knew many doctors who did just this, and my mother - a retired nurse, knew of even more doctors who had done this decades ago. Doctors have always 'eased' terminal patients along, discreetly and quietly. But to allow such a thing to become legislated? to make it a law that doctors can end a life? where does such a law start and end?

I read about that poor lady too. Unfortunately she would have suffered intense and unbearable pain long before her condition killed her itself - life is so damn cruel. But how does a Govt go about allowing assisted-suicide? the term is contradictory. Suicide is one thing - at one's own hands - as she finally chose, but when you bring the term 'assisted' into the equation you are talking about something else altogether. What is the line between assisted-suicide and agreed-homicide? should there be witnesses, signed forms? to me it would be like sanctioning an execution. Yes I know the Netherlands has such a policy in place - I have also read many horror stories that have occurred through their state sanctioned euthansia. Put it this way; if I ever find myself in the position of facing prolonged suffering ( I watched my own father die a prolonged death) I will act accordingly for myself. I do not want some law, or some nurse-with-a-conscience telling me when I have had enough and that it is time to go.

 

 

 

[Clair]

[quote user="Jura"]... But how does a Govt go about allowing assisted-suicide? the term is contradictory. Suicide is one thing - at one's own hands - as she finally chose, but when you bring the term 'assisted' into the equation you are talking about something else altogether. What is the line between assisted-suicide and agreed-homicide? should there be witnesses, signed forms? to me it would be like sanctioning an execution. Yes I know the Netherlands has such a policy in place - I have also read many horror stories that have occurred through their state sanctioned euthansia. Put it this way; if I ever find myself in the position of facing prolonged suffering ( I watched my own father die a prolonged death) I will act accordingly for myself. I do not want some law, or some nurse-with-a-conscience telling me when I have had enough and that it is time to go. [/quote]

Answers to your questions can be found here: http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/yourrights/, but they do not apply to France.

This page outlines the French legal position: http://sos-net.eu.org/medical/euthanas.htm#10

[just john]

One way or another this is a debate that needs to be heard and resolved eventually, we can't go on treating terminal sufferers like the middle ages, worse than animals in my opinion, who at least are spared suffering. I don't believe in euthansia, especially where the patient is not able to make a contribution to the debate; However more needs to be done to alleviate the suffering of patients with a finite term of life. Death in this manner is not going to go away and a whole new world approach incorporating 'Quality of Life' needs to be instigated after due review, rather than just drugging a patient out of consciousness. There must be a third way, 'Quality of Life' should mean that.  And that includes a review of the way the medical profession approaches these cases.

[Frenchie]

[quote user="Jura"]

Yes Frenchie, it is a very difficult subject. But does 'regulated' come under the heading of 'condoned'...? I have trouble with the comparison between animal pain and human suffering...should human beings simply be 'put down' as we do animals? {It has nothing to do, an animal can't choose and ask for an end  ]animal suffering is heartbreaking, yes, but in my mind a human life is worth so much more than that of a dog or cat. On the same note, why do we not offer animals options in pain relief rather than instant euthanasia? ( I think we do !! Euthanasia is the last option when the quality of life of the animal is really bad.. ) because even though human suffering can be unbearable, ending a human life means so much more than ending that of a pet. NO one ever said the contrary !!!

I can understand in a way why you did not pass 'that' aspect of your exam. The job of a nurse is to 'nurse'. To allow your beliefs to affect your work could be detrimental to your patient's well-being. I would NEVER have allowed my belief " affect my work" .. !!! I Just wanted to be very human and nurse but also establish a human relationship through dialogue!!

I think this is where you went wrong in your exam. You keep your beliefs about life and death, particularly OTHER PEOPLES life and death, to yourself. No, I'm sorry, as a citizen I have a right to express my opinion, and this is how society evolves.. debates  need to take place and they are now .. It is not only " other people's lives", one day it could be mine, or the one of my relatives ..

Having said that...I had earlier worked for my doctor in his office and knew how he 'assisted' several of his sick and elderly patients in the local nursing home to 'sleep peacefully' through their final sufferings. I knew many doctors who did just this, and my mother - a retired nurse, knew of even more doctors who had done this decades ago. Doctors have always 'eased' terminal patients along, discreetly and quietly. But to allow such a thing to become legislated?  to make it a law that doctors can end a life? where does such a law start and end?

That s when it should be STRICTLY regulated!! One should be sure the patient has explicitly ASKED for euthanasia , after being informed of his/ her evolution by at least two different doctors . And when suffering becomes so  unbearable that even morphine can relieve it..  When a patients ask for help , why shouldn't they get it ? You and I know quite well it happens, many doctors accept in silence but fear for their jobs.. or patients go to Belgium or switzerland....

I read about that poor lady too. Unfortunately she would have suffered intense and unbearable pain long before her condition killed her itself - life is so damn cruel. But how does a Govt go about allowing assisted-suicide? the term is contradictory. Suicide is one thing - at one's own hands - as she finally chose, but when you bring the term 'assisted' into the equation you are talking about something else altogether. What is the line between assisted-suicide and agreed-homicide? should there be witnesses, signed forms?OF COURSE !!! to me it would be like sanctioning an execution. Yes I know the Netherlands has such a policy in place - I have also read many horror stories that have occurred through their state sanctioned euthansia. Put it this way; if I ever find myself in the position of facing prolonged suffering ( I watched my own father die a prolonged death) I will act accordingly for myself. I do not want some law, or some nurse-with-a-conscience telling me when I have had enough and that it is time to go.  Hey hey !!  I did not mean a nurse should decide for a patient !!!!

[:-))][:-))] .. !!!  I have the highest respect for life, having lost a baby myself , I treasure life and I know how fragile and beautiful it is !!

I wanted to be professional AND human , allow patients to live a life that corresponds to  THEIR definition of a life in dignity .. I would never have done ANYTHING out of the law, because I respect the law , and I believe in the French Republic .

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

[Frenchie]

Sorry, double post ..

[Scooby]

Frenchie I agree with you completely.  Many of these patients want an end to their suffering but, because of the ravages of their illness, no longer have the physical capacity to do it themselves.  I hope and pray (and have told my close family) that if ever I am in that situation someone would compassionate and brave enough to help me.  It's about quality of life not quantity and the only person capable of judging whether there is sufficient quality of life to persevere is the suffering individual - all these people are asking is that someone respects their right to choose.

[Tony F Dordogne]

I can remember a district nurse in the UK who was looking after my father telling me that he was in so much pain it was better to 'let him go' after he had asked me several times to help him overdose on his painkillers.  I then didn't have the nerve to help him but the nurse did, she knew almost to the minute when  he would die after she gave him a huge dose of tranquilisers and painkillers.

When I was first diagnosed with my blood condition in 1983, a couple of years after my Dad died, I was given 5 years to live.  J and I had just started living together.  We both take a pragmatic view of this dreadful dilemna.  My medical file here is marked as DNR in the event of me having a debilitating stroke which is untreatable, and assuming I survive it as many people with PRV don't, I have enough meds for J to help me if I'm in any sort of vegetative state at home and in the event of me being able to do it myself, I'm quite happy to make sure that she doesn't have to look after somebody she no longer knows and who, if I were able to make a rational and informed decision, would not want to be alive.

Despite all the drugs and the chemo, I'm still very high risk for a stroke or major heart attack.  It's all quality of life issues for me.  If I can't read, write, listen to music, understand my garden and the seasons, speak to chums, that sort of thing, thanks but no thanks.

My heart bleeds for Chantal Sebire and her family.  If a government is compassionate and caring, they should listen to the wishes of people who are terminally ill, rather than the medics and the Church, forget the BIG moraility issues and should think about the dignity and the suffering of their citizens. 

[Clair]

[quote user="Scooby"]Many of

these patients want an end to their suffering but, because of the

ravages of their illness, no longer have the physical capacity to do it

themselves. [...] It's about quality of life not quantity and the

only person capable of judging whether there is sufficient quality of

life to persevere is the suffering individual - all these people are

asking is that someone respects their right to choose.

[/quote][quote user="Tony F Dordogne"]It's all quality of life issues for me.  If I can't read, write, listen to music, understand my garden and the seasons, speak to chums, that sort of thing, thanks but no thanks.[/quote]

Well said Frenchie, Scooby and Tony.

Out of compassion and humanity, anyone with a debilitating or terminal illness who wishes to choose when and how to die should be given the medical support to do so in a dignified manner.

I was a member of VEF (now called Dignity in dying) when I lived in the UK and I had a living will, but I know it will not be recognised in France.

I just hope that, should I find myself in a situation where I can make the choice, I shall have the physical ability to do so, as it appears I will not be allowed to be given any help.