Do you think Euthanasia will ever be legal in Ireland?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Terrlock

I'm not going to go into this any further as it's a relative. I have urged them strongly to persue it but they think they wouldn't get anywhere with it.

Liverpool care path does happen in Ireland, if people think it doesn't then do some research into it.

They can do it and legally get away with it.

There isn't much we can do to persue it. I have seen it happen twice as I have stated.

Have a read of the following if you are interested in this.

http://www.ncaop.ie/publications/research/reports/103_EOL_Care_Report.pdf

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/healthandchildren/health2014/Vol-2-complete-part-E.pdf

http://www.cardi.ie/publications/reviewofliverpoolcarepathwayfordyingpatients

I'm not sure what the difference is between LCP and Euthanasia.

And if Euthansia was legalised how many more people would be euthanised without concent just like with LCP.

Terrlock

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

But the other person who survived, can they not report what they and their son know to the Gardaí? Wasn't Harold Shipman Killing off old people and he went to prison for it?

Is it the morphine driver you're talking about?

I completely agree, I really would like them to persue it unfortunetly they won't or didn't inform me that they had.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hannibal_Smith

Terrlock wrote: »

I'm not going to go into this any further as it's a relative. I have urged them strongly to persue it but they think they wouldn't get anywhere with it.

Liverpool care path does happen in Ireland, if people think it doesn't then do some research into it.

They can do it and legally get away with it.

There isn't much we can do to persue it. I have seen it happen twice as I have stated.

Have a read of the following if you are interested in this.

http://www.ncaop.ie/publications/research/reports/103_EOL_Care_Report.pdf

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/healthandchildren/health2014/Vol-2-complete-part-E.pdf

http://www.cardi.ie/publications/reviewofliverpoolcarepathwayfordyingpatients

I'm not sure what the difference is between LCP and Euthanasia.

And if Euthansia was legalised how many more people would be euthanised without concent just like with LCP.

The difference between euthanasia and what's done in palliative care, is that YOU make the decision. You end your life. Nobody else. If you are euthanasied without consent that is murder.

I haven't experienced someone in the final stages of life, but I have heard that things are done to hurry things along where death is coming anyway. I don't see an issue with that. But if someone is conscious and saying no, as in the example you gave, that is murder and should be reported.

Sorry for your loss.

Terrlock

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think most people are unaware.

I mean how would you know if you were not a medical professional?

If you were told someone is dying and to say final goodbye's.

How would you know?

Ever think about how they can say someone will be gone in the next few hours or days. Most people would put it down to their underlying health issues, such as kidney failure which was in my uncles case or cancer which was in another persons case.

However the actual cause of treatment was using a drug combined with removing food and water. on a chart this is just worded as removal of treatment and administration of a drug to make them comfortable.

Again you don't have to look far to get some research on it

http://noliverpoolcarepathway.com/drugs-drugs-and-more-drugs/drugs-used-for-those-deemed-dying/

If you think this is crazy or something that doesn't happen then it doesn't hurt to at least research the topic.

corner of hells

Terrlock wrote: »

....... wrote: »

Do you mean a conscious person is saying "I want to live" and doctors are actually actively killing them?

Or people on machines with no hope? They must be conscious though if they are expressing they dont want to die?

Yes both were conscious and wanted to live and not on machines.

And one survived as his son was a nurse who knew what was going on and made the doctors and nurse stop.

They give a drug which effectively shuts down all the organ in the body and stop giving food and water.


This person is alive enjoying life today because is son intervened. The other person was not so lucky.

That's possibly one of the most disturbing accounts of an event that happened in a hospital.
Am I right to take it that these nurses and doctors are still working ?

GritBiscuit

Terrlock wrote:

Your right they should, I certainly would persue it to the very end.

So do that then.

There's more than enough public interest in such a heinous practice to warrant locus standi.

Terrlock

corner of hells wrote: »

That's possibly one of the most disturbing accounts of an event that happened in a hospital.
Am I right to take it that these nurses and doctors are still working ?

That happened in a Dublin Based hospital in 2012 so I'd imagine they would be still working.

The other one happend in 2011 again in a dublin based hospital and a close friend had to adopt the kids of the mother who passed away as a result.

I hope the practice has been discontinued but I always watch out for it now and from talking to other people about the topic I have come to the conclusion that it's more common then people realise.

corner of hells

Terrlock wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

That's possibly one of the most disturbing accounts of an event that happened in a hospital.
Am I right to take it that these nurses and doctors are still working ?

That happened in a Dublin Based hospital in 2012 so I'd imagine they would be still working.

The other one happend in 2011 again in a dublin based hospital and a close friend had to adopt the kids of the mother who passed away as a result.

I hope the practice has been discontinued but I always watch out for it now and from talking to other people about the topic I have come to the conclusion that it's more common then people realise.

I've a parent under pallative care at moment with a huge amount of pain management going on.
There's a working relationship between ourselves , her GP , a consultant and a palliative care team with all options having being explained to us including the various medications in use at the moment and those to become available.
There's no mention anywhere of any medication to shut down organs , there are variables to come into place to control increase in pain ,agitation , nausea and restlessness to name but a few.
There's also included a withrawal of administration of some medications.

I don't doubt what you say but it's astonishing.

Hannibal_Smith

Terrlock wrote: »

I think most people are unaware.

I mean how would you know if you were not a medical professional?

If you were told someone is dying and to say final goodbye's.

How would you know?

I would think you would know by the person themselves? You consult with the doctor, they tell you nothing more can be done we keep them comfortable. That, I would think is standard. In your cases, both people were conscious and said no, but treatment was removed anyway? Surely, a loved one would ask why they stopped treatment?

nozzferrahhtoo

Terrlock wrote: »

"900 people annually are administered lethal substances without having given explicit consent"

While it is unclear what he means by "explicit consent" here...... for example if before I went to the hospital I wrote something about my wishes to die if my quality of life was about to be reduced and this was found is that "explicit" consent.......... I have no doubt at all that this is happening.

But I have little doubt that it is happening in countries with and also those WITHOUT legal and formal practices of Euthanasia. I would say the "problem" is a problem either way.

In fact where a formal and legal procedure in place for a legal right to die, this problem could even be potentially LESSENED. Because before anything could be administered a formal procedure must be followed. So those doing so WITHOUT following said procedure would surely be easier to detect?

I think people use cases of it been done as pressure, or without consent on the sly, as arguments against a legal right to die, and legal Euthanaisa. I myself A) do not see it as a valid argument against it and as I said I see potential ways where it is legal to LESSEN the impact of such issues that would not be available otherwise.

Terrlock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

While it is unclear what he means by "explicit consent" here...... for example if before I went to the hospital I wrote something about my wishes to die if my quality of life was about to be reduced and this was found is that "explicit" consent.......... I have no doubt at all that this is happening.

But I have little doubt that it is happening in countries with and also those WITHOUT legal and formal practices of Euthanasia. I would say the "problem" is a problem either way.

In fact where a formal and legal procedure in place for a legal right to die, this problem could even be potentially LESSENED. Because before anything could be administered a formal procedure must be followed. So those doing so WITHOUT following said procedure would surely be easier to detect?

I think people use cases of it been done as pressure, or without consent on the sly, as arguments against a legal right to die, and legal Euthanaisa. I myself A) do not see it as a valid argument against it and as I said I see potential ways where it is legal to LESSEN the impact of such issues that would not be available otherwise.

Well there are some experts in Euthansia who claim as many as 1 in 5 euthenised patients are pressured into it.

I don't think it's a invalid argument I think it's something that needs to be considered if it's ever to be introduced and what safe guard can be put in place and actually followed to prevent such a thing from occuring.

Hannibal_Smith

Terrlock wrote: »

Well there are some experts in Euthansia who claim as many as 1 in 5 euthenised patients are pressured into it.

.

That's not entirely true. They can't say for sure whether the rise in euthanasia is down to family pressure. And it's not family pressure as in...do it do it now. It can be presented as a choice by a family member to the patient. Or it can be the patient trying to VOLUNTARILY make things easier on the family, depending on the diagnosis influencing their decision.


From a quick Google I found the article you are referring and it is Holland based and they cannot.say for sure whether it is the case that family pressure is a contributing factor. But in all cases it has to be a voluntary decision by the patient and they are checked by doctors to make sure this is the case.

nozzferrahhtoo

Terrlock wrote: »

Well there are some experts in Euthansia who claim as many as 1 in 5 euthenised patients are pressured into it.

I myself tend to be more impressed by the evidence upon which they claim things, rather than that they are experts and they are claiming it. "Experts" claim many things that turn out to be patent nonsense. Let us see the basis for the claim rather than who is making it.

Terrlock wrote: »

I don't think it's a invalid argument I think it's something that needs to be considered

I think we agree but you think we disagree because you think the first part of your sentence is a negation of the second. It is not.

It MUST be considered. It HAS to be considered. I 100% agree.

But it is an argument about HOW to implement a Right To Die and standard of Euthanasia. It is not a valid argument at all AGAINST doing so however.

That is what I mean when I say it is not a valid argument. If I gave any impression that by invalid I mean it has not utility or application anywhere at all.... then I apologize for that failure in communication.

I always check any argument given to see if it an argument AGAINST doing X or an argument for doing X the right way. In this case it is the latter.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

NIMAN wrote: »

Why on Earth would the authorities want to resus such a person? for what purpose?

Because catholic Ireland :rolleyes:

Same reason a rotting corpse was kept "alive" just because she was pregnant.

seamus

My opinion on euthanasia is likely a lot more liberal than most people's.

One way or another we're all checking out. Whether that's today, tomorrow, or in fifty years, nobody escapes. Every day that you choose to stay alive, you are choosing to put off death for another day, while you can.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter when you die. There's no reason why someone should have to live a long life before they die. Or to have a terminal illness. You're going one way or another.

So, yes, I would be of the opinion that any adult of sound mind who chooses to check out, should be permitted to do so, regardless of age or illness.

With appropriate protections in place, of course - perhaps a jury system where the person satisfies that jury that their decision is genuine, well-considered and with the full understanding of the gravity of it. The aim is not to balance whether someone's life should or shouldn't continue, just whether or not they have appropriately consented.

Ireland will eventually legalise assisted dying, but we definitely won't jump first. It will be widely available in Europe before we make it available in very restricted circumstances.

Hotblack Desiato

RustyNut wrote: »

I certainty hope the option is legally available to me and mine should the need or desire ever come up but I fear it will be like abortion, only available to those with the resources to travel abroad.

It's worse than that. There is a constitutional right to travel for an abortion. With euthanasia, Gardai have threatened family / friends that if they travel with the person or assist in any way, they are at risk of criminal charges. That doesn't appear legal to me under the ECHR, but nobody wants to be the test case and in the meantime these threats are having the desired effect of keeping Ireland that little bit more catholic for a while longer. Sure who cares about the suffering and misery this causes, not those in positions of power anyway.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ubbquittious

corner of hells wrote: »

It's a lesser of two evils , do you leave elderly infirm people in thier own homes or look to admit them to a nursing home.

You don't necessarily have to pay yourself out of your funds to pay for care in a nursing home.Both Fair Deal and subvention don't touch the children's or spouses assets , both are means tested and if you are wealthy enough private care is available.

Nursing homes provide care and support for people unable to care for themselves and also for a family if they are unable to look after their loved one in their own homes.

No nursing home will take some who needs extensive medical care , most won't admit a patient with bedsores nevermind some needing daily attention off a doctor.

Still there is a % of people in there who would opt for euthanasia. So they stand to lose and those in the industry will lobby the politicians to prevent it from coming in.

corner of hells

Ubbquittious wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

It's a lesser of two evils , do you leave elderly infirm people in thier own homes or look to admit them to a nursing home.

You don't necessarily have to pay yourself out of your funds to pay for care in a nursing home.Both Fair Deal and subvention don't touch the children's or spouses assets , both are means tested and if you are wealthy enough private care is available.

Nursing homes provide care and support for people unable to care for themselves and also for a family if they are unable to look after their loved one in their own homes.

No nursing home will take some who needs extensive medical care , most won't admit a patient with bedsores nevermind some needing daily attention off a doctor.

Still there is a % of people in there who would opt for euthanasia. So they stand to lose and those in the industry will lobby the politicians to prevent it from coming in.

What percentage?

granturismo

Gwynplaine wrote: »

Waiting on Ali G quote.

Is that 'I've nothing against the youth in asia'? I think those english language schools are just a scam.

The third level colleges are raking in foreign national fees from all those asian students.

Cunning Stunt

I dont know which hospices other posters have insight into, but I wish i knew!
My mother has been in one for a few weeks with advanced cancer, is bedridden and pleading with us on a daily basis to help with pain and to 'kill her or cure her'. Hospice is adjusting meds the whole time to see what works while actively trying to avoid giving her too much - they have actually reduced the amount of morphine in the driver as they thought her system might be getting full up.with meds and 'toxic'. We have put it to them that at least when toxic shes not in pain but were told flat out that they will not do that! So shes lingering on and its shocking for her and family. They are also putting IV drips on her now which I dont understand as she doesnt want to eat or drink fluids anymore and that should surely be a part of the dying process.... We are completely disillusioned with the hospice care at this stage. I am not sure if makes a difference that its a Catholic hospice?

In stark contrast my father died at home from cancer and he had nurses coming to the house, was only on morphine pump, no IV or anything else and the pump was adjusted - and we reckon increased- until he went into a long sleep and he died peacefully after a day or so.

Wanderer78

Cunning Stunt wrote:

I dont know which hospices other posters have insight into, but I wish i knew!

I wish you and your family the very best of luck.

Great documentary about euthanasia on radio one yesterday. I 'll post link in a bit.

edit:http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/2017/1012/911818-do-no-harm/

JupiterKid

Yes it will. It will be maybe 20 or 30 years but it will happen at some stage.

It is already legal in Switzerland and Belgium. But Ireland is not, and never has been a proactive country when it comes to personal choice, freedoms and responsibilities so we will wait for most Western European countries to change their laws before we do the same ourselves.

The same-sex marriage referendum made us fool ourselves into thinking we are a progressive society. We are most certainly not.

uck51js9zml2yt

RobbingBandit wrote: »

That's pretty much a Do Not Resuscitate order, it's a tricky subject is possible to set one up but not an open topic in most cases.

A DNR is very different. It's where the person has has died and is not ressucitated.
Euthanasia is self murder/ killing ( whatever you want to call it)

GritBiscuit

Self-murder/killing is suicide. Self murder ceased to be a criminal offence in Ireland from 1993.

Euthanasia is often also referred to as "assisted suicide" as they generally require third party involvement, most usually a medical practitioner but sometimes a partner or friend. It is a criminal offence to partake in either euthanasia (from the Greek for "good death" ie to relieve suffering) or assisted suicide (bringing the unnatural end to valid life).

JupiterKid wrote: »

Yes it will. It will be maybe 20 or 30 years but it will happen at some stage.

We'll probably wait for it to become legal in the UK then change legislation so that we can, literally and metaphorically, ship the issue over there while still claiming the moral high ground. Tis the wonderfully cowardly Irish way.

myshirt

Did anyone watch the Vice special on this? It's on YouTube.

Wesser

I never understand why abortion is top of list if urgent issues and hets debated so much and euthanasia is not.
Surely if we end up , as a country, citing pro choice.... we should also be euthanasia.

One offer no choice to.its victim who is not able to voice it's wishes and has never had the opportunity to live a life.

The other is expressedly longed for a d chosen by an individual.who has lived life......

tomwaterford

I support it.....if I was dying of an incurable and horrible degenerative disease



Would rather check out on my terms than wait around to die in pain

erica74

I doubt it will be legal here in my lifetime. I would imagine it will only become legal here if the EU makes it so.

I have made my wishes very clear, if I ever become incapacitated to the extent that I am a "vegetable", I want to be secreted out of the country and brought somewhere to be put to sleep.

I have had 2 events happen in my life that could have ended in my death. The likelihood of me coming out the other side of a third event and being relatively "okay" is low so I don't want to be kept alive and trapped inside my own body.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wesser wrote: »

One offer no choice to.its victim who is not able to voice it's wishes

A sentence seemingly deliberately written to imply that it HAS wishes to voice.

The near totality of choice based abortion occurs in or before week 16. At this point there is ZERO biological basis to expect to find ANY level of consciousness or sentience in the fetus in any form.

It it not unable to voice it's wishes. It HAS none to voice in the first place.

Hotblack Desiato

erica74 wrote: »

I doubt it will be legal here in my lifetime. I would imagine it will only become legal here if the EU makes it so.

I don't know why people keep saying things like this, the EU can't make a member state do anything like this. The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU and can't force us to change our laws either.

mahamageehad

I do think it will be legal at some stage, but similarly to abortion we'll start the Irish way by allowing travel abroad first. Keeping people alive and in pain is terrible. If I got to that stage, I'd like the option to be available to me so I'm not in a position to judge anyone who would choose it for themselves.

scamalert

why do always people blame youthinasia

on a serious note, yes it should be an option, seen someone mention people in coma, these things if they last for years are a major burden and sometimes plug off is the option they would take for families sake, there are many illnesses disorders where people would take that route, since reaching stage in life where you become living vegetable or burden without any prospects but more like a pet breath and crap is sort of self explanatory.

the OPs mistake was to word it like burden on hse, rather general outlook and situation that some people face.

CrabRevolution

I find it hard to believe doctors would deliberately murder terminally ill patients to begin with. But....

Doctors tend to be incredibly careful with what they do in case they get sued. The courts tend to always side with the patient in malpractice/negligence suits. We've seen it in a few abortion cases where doctors have done nothing because the law is unclear and they aren't willing to take what seems to be the right, obvious choice in case it leaves them open to litigation.

Because of this, I really find it a huge stretch of the imagination that a doctor would leave a documented trail of a deliberate overdose/poisoning they administered to a patient, for all to see and to be recorded for all time.

He's literally signing his career death warrant by prescribing whatever he did. A prescription so glaringly obvious that all it took was another nurse to read it to point it out? And despite being so obvious, nothing ever came of it: the patient just recovered, was discharged and everyone got on with their lives?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

seamus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Because of this, I really find it a huge stretch of the imagination that a doctor would leave a documented trail of a deliberate overdose/poisoning they administered to a patient, for all to see and to be recorded for all time.

Medical records have the benefit of hindsight.

What a doctor records/prescribes as palliative care, someone else may see as deliberate poisoning. Especially in a freak case where a patient survives a seemingly terminal illness.

This is why medical inquests always have to be very careful about ensuring they have the context right - that the doctor made good decisions based on the knowledge they had at the time, and not based on hindsight. And is also why people get really annoyed when inquests make no finding of wrongdoing, even when in hindsight the doctor didn't make the correct decision.

Outside of that, it would be very common, bordering on standard practice for doctors to make terminal patients more comfortable, at the expense of a short improvement in life. Where a person is lying in a bed, weak and in pain, and the doctor has the option of a drug which may help keep them alive for a couple of extra weeks (but just alive, not "improved"), or strong painkillers which will make them more comfortable but reduce their lifespan by a couple of weeks, they will go for the latter.

A lot of people (including some doctors) are under the mistaken belief that a doctor's duty is to extend the lifespan at all costs. When in reality it's not. Where a drug or course of treatment will provide no appreciable improvement in the patient's condition, the doctor is not obliged to provide it. And "more time alive" is not necessarily an improvement. Whereas providing pain relief and reducing suffering is something they are obliged to do; even if to do so may reduce the patient's lifespan.

Some people view this as doctor-led murder, but they're few and far between. Most people support making terminally ill patients more comfortable rather than forcing them to eek every minute out of their life no matter how miserable it is.

CrabRevolution

seamus wrote: »

Medical records have the benefit of hindsight.

What a doctor records/prescribes as palliative care, someone else may see as deliberate poisoning. Especially in a freak case where a patient survives a seemingly terminal illness.

This is why medical inquests always have to be very careful about ensuring they have the context right - that the doctor made good decisions based on the knowledge they had at the time, and not based on hindsight. And is also why people get really annoyed when inquests make no finding of wrongdoing, even when in hindsight the doctor didn't make the correct decision.

Outside of that, it would be very common, bordering on standard practice for doctors to make terminal patients more comfortable, at the expense of a short improvement in life. Where a person is lying in a bed, weak and in pain, and the doctor has the option of a drug which may help keep them alive for a couple of extra weeks (but just alive, not "improved"), or strong painkillers which will make them more comfortable but reduce their lifespan by a couple of weeks, they will go for the latter.

A lot of people (including some doctors) are under the mistaken belief that a doctor's duty is to extend the lifespan at all costs. When in reality it's not. Where a drug or course of treatment will provide no appreciable improvement in the patient's condition, the doctor is not obliged to provide it. And "more time alive" is not necessarily an improvement. Whereas providing pain relief and reducing suffering is something they are obliged to do; even if to do so may reduce the patient's lifespan.

Some people view this as doctor-led murder, but they're few and far between. Most people support making terminally ill patients more comfortable rather than forcing them to eek every minute out of their life no matter how miserable it is.

I agree totally, but the poster in question was claiming the doctors were trying to kill a perfectly viable patient who was capable of recovering, and it was only the intervention of a visitor that prevented this murder occuring.

The Legend Of Kira

If there was a referendum on this issue I think it would only pass as long as there were some guidelines attached as in the types of cases it would be legalised for etc. if someone is terminally ill he/she is in pain & he/she is not gonna get any better it should be up to the individual if he/she wants to choose to avail of Euthanasia or not. If Im not the one terminally ill in pain like he/she is I don,t see it as my place to dictate what they should be allowed do as Im not walking in their shoes, I think Euthanasia should be legal in certain cases.

Hotblack Desiato

I believe the Supreme Court said a couple of years ago that there was no constitutional barrier to introducing euthanasia, and it was up to the Oireachtas to legislate if they so choose.

seamus

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I agree totally, but the poster in question was claiming the doctors were trying to kill a perfectly viable patient who was capable of recovering, and it was only the intervention of a visitor that prevented this murder occuring.

Oh I know, and I'm skeptical of the story.

In attempting to resolve the story to possible truths, I was illustrating that it's not uncommon for a family in hindsight to make claims about a doctor's conduct that from a different point of view, and with the benefit of hindsight, can look like a deliberate attempt to kill a patient.

The LCP in particular has fallen out of use, but would have still been used at the time given in the story. The main problem with it is that it was an unnecessarily "aggressive" way of managing a patient's end-of-life and was sometimes erroneously applied in cases of terminally ill patients who could have died naturally without requiring intervention. Or elderly patients with a very poor prognosis, but who weren't necessarily terminal.

Which is unfortunate, but a long way from the claim that doctors and nurses were trying to "off" a viable patient for the purposes of freeing up beds. Treatment of patients is based on following best practice, and sometimes best practice is flawed in hindsight.