Would you rather live as a vegetable or die of starvation and dehydration?

[nomoss]

[url]https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/30/uk-judges-will-no-longer-have-to-rule-in-vegetative-state-decisions-supreme-court[/url]

Not a very attractive choice in my opinion. Maybe I would still be aware, and live through the horror of gradually starving to death. I'd rather have something swift and final.

I had the experience of watching my mother die, in a British intensive care facility in a tatty Portacamp installation near Wimbledon a few years ago. She was transferred there from Bath after catastrophic brain haemorrhage - which was euphemistaically referred to as "a bleed", and only lasted a couple of hours after the family members present agreed to "removing life support" after almost a week there.

There was no question of consulting a judge.

In my mother's case they stopped several systems, including aids to respiration and transfusions, but I still wonder if they didn't help her along the way to a peaceful departure.

I think and hope the French deal with these situations in a similar sensible and humane way......

[mogs]

If there was absolutely no chance of recovery with a reasonable brain function, I would rather die.

I hope I never have to go through this with any of my family.

My mum, bless her, is 92 this year. She has vascular dementia and forgets our phone conversations and repeats over and over again. She does know who I am and asks about my children, husband so she does have some memory.

But as for living in a vegetative state, is that living? I think not.

[idun]

I am glad that they have decided to do this, as I have strong ideas on end of life, no matter the age, because of my own family circumstances.

Sadly because of the likes of Shipman, Drs dare not give that extra dose of morphine etc and let someone go peacefully.

Incidentally, if someone appears to be in pain, I feel sure that pain killers would be administered.

And it wouldn't be the lack of  food, it would be the lack of fluids that did for someone, surely?

[richard51]

Surely technically its respiration (ie oxygen) or cardiac arrest that would "do" eventually.

This is a very difficult question and most people will have some view based on personal experience.,

For me, this law appears to be progress ie when family and medics agree, then why impose restrictions?

When not, then court is perhaps the only alternative.

Whatever decision, it should be based on the suffering or not or wishes of the patient rather than the whims of grieving relatives.

[idun]

I think that this goes beyond the patient, as they are their lives are so diminished that they can no longer chose.

Today's decision is that the Drs should discuss this with the family and everyone decide. The law remains that if there is no consensus, it would still go to court.

[Judith]

All very difficult indeed.  I don't remember such a fuss when my sister died after a brain haemorrage in the 80's.  If she had lived she would have been a cabbage, which is I suppose an easy way of saying permanent ... etc, anyway, no life at all, and we all, her husband and family decided that was not what we anted for her, and her life support was turned off once they had taken all the organs they wanted, again with our absolute agreement.  No courts, no delay, all happened with a few days.

I certainly would not want to live, or want anyone else to live, in any condition in which they were not able to function in a way they wanted to, or would have wanted to if they had been able to express an opinion.  It seems to me a very sensible and practical solution.  Upon discussion and agreement with all, no reason to involve the courts.  As Idun says, safeguards have been built in in case of disagreement, so why make it more complicated.  We could pray and hope that a cure will some day be found, but would anyone, even the patient, want to live that long in that condition, in the very vague hope that it might happen one day?  I think not.

[nomoss]

Most people seem to have totally missed the fact that my question was not about their views on allowing people to die, but about the choice apparently being offered in the UK, of starving or dying of thirst.

Do you think all those being "mercifully" despatched in this way are completely unaware of what is happening, and will have no horrific experiences or pain, at whatever level of consciousness, before they finally let go?

[YCCMB]

All far too close to home for me right now. My brother in law has been in just such circumstances since March, having had a brain haemorrhage to add to his vascular dementia and Alzheimer's. He can't communicate, stand or walk, and I'm sure he wouldn't want to be kept alive as he is. But he can eat (or be fed) and from what I've read, the benchmark here related to people being intravenously nourished.

He's actually being better nourished than he was prior to his hospital admission as he was forgetting to eat and forgetting whether he'd eaten.

It's an impossible choice.

[idun]

So difficult, and simplifying this by imagining death by starvation or thirst is not helpful.

We are talking rotten ways to die here, of which there are tooooooo many. They are plenty of illnesses where we can no longer swallow when we are very very sick, and in simple terms, we are dying, nature is killing us. How conscious we would be when this was happening I don't know. And lack of fluids would see us off far quicker than actual starvation.

I am gourmande, but when I am ill, I have problems eating, don't fancy, lots of us feel the same.

This is a good thing that has been done, BUT the thing for me that isn't sorted, is us not having the 'RIGHT TO DIE', would that they would pass laws for that, having the eternal sleep.

[Judith]

Many older people, living at home, on in residential accommodation, very often loose their sense of taste and thirst.  They drink very little, eat not at lot, and quite often are hospitalised not because they are not eating but because their lack of fluids has caused another problem,  This is what finally did in my aunt, hospitalised for a liver or kidney problem due to not drinking enough over many years, though she had already told me that at 95 she was ready to go, all her friends had died etc.  So it might often be just that, it doesn't take very long to die due to dehydration, and so often that is all that is happening in hospital. 

And I do often wonder just how much people who are very ill feel.  Think how you feel when you are in bed with something like a bad dose of flu.  You really couldn't care about anything.

Add into that sensation an inability to do anything for yourself, a declining physical and mental capacity and how can we say for sure that they suffer.  Certainly our decision with my sister was easy.  We did not want her to stay in a vegetative state, and what is even more important, knew that she would not have wanted to be there either.  She was too much a vibrant personality and active person for that.

Such decisions are not easy, but it you know the person well, you can decide what they would have wanted if they had been able to express an opinion.

[idun]

As a family member who was over a 100 said to me, they felt 'tired' and couldn't be bothered.

When I am very ill, I just want to sleep, and really, if one passes in one's sleep, is there a better way to go? I cannot think of one.

[mogs]

My Dad passed away in his sleep at 82. I hope he passed peacefully although we will never know.

He didn't have a PM as he had seen the GP just a couple of days before for a cough.

No better way to go but terrible for family as so sudden.

[mogs]

Nomoss, sorry to not answer you're question.

I don't think to die of starvation or dehydration are very pleasant ways to go and I wouldn't want anything but a quick injection.

I hope they can help the patient along his/her way without suffering.

After all you wouldn't let an animal suffer would you.

[nomoss]

[quote user="mogs"]Nomoss, sorry to not answer you're question.

I don't think to die of starvation or dehydration are very pleasant ways to go and I wouldn't want anything but a quick injection.

I hope they can help the patient along his/her way without suffering.

After all you wouldn't let an animal suffer would you.[/quote]

Just my point.

Rather than be left to die by whatever "natural" means, I'd far rather be despatched as quickly as possible.

As you imply, you would at least do as much for a pet.............

After all, the decision has more to do with the interests of the hospital and the convenience of the family than the welfare of the patient.

[Judith]

Good point.  We don't let animals suffer, they get put down speedily when it is final, in case they might suffer.  So why do we not allow humans the same right we give to animals?