johnsoncarmichael

of course they should be allowed to do so, provided that they are over the age of majority, all the facts are available to them and that their express wish is clear. </BLOCKQUOTE>
i stopped reading right about there... </BLOCKQUOTE>

why`s that? because the rest of the post was an a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t against your points?

johnsoncarmichael

lfcfan is basically spot on. it`s not anyone`s job but the patient`s to decide which treatments he or she ought to accept or refuse.

Mr Wallin

Don't think that's true though. Most of us wants some sort of consistency. If that be the "do what you want, it's your body" as displayed with the transfusion or if it is the "no, you can't kill yourself/do drugs" is a totally different discussion.

Mr Wallin

But as that isn't the case (by the law) all the time we are stuck with this discussion.

Anu

No they won't if they know that it will kill him. This is exactly what euthanasia is and it is illegal almost everywhere on the planet. </BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you've misunderstood the system, I think. I'm almost completely sure that I'm right! </BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you're the one missing the point.
From wikipedia
"Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a human or animal who is incurably ill in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. Laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia, and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care, or treatments become available. It is legal in some jurisdictions, while in others it may be criminalized."

Also here you have a list of countries and what is the law there regarding euthanasia. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Your quote does not give evidence to the point you are making

A doctor is not allowed to give treatment to a patient against their will

General Medical Council Guidance states that "[Adult competent patients] have the right to refuse 4 treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death"

"you are bound to respect an adult patient's competently made refusal of treatment even where complying with the decision will lead to the patient's death"

There is no distinction between withdrawal and withholding treatment (not a quote, my own knowledge)

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/current/library/witholdi...nce.asp#Introduction

Anu

I think that system is valid and fair, by the way </BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what most of us are saying. It would be the best but it's only like that in certain cases which makes it so illogical which is what I'm arguing against. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Well the argument seems like a waste of time, if that's the case.

The doctors can go to court to try and get a ruling against what the patient requests if they have a reason to etc, but they cannot force treatment upon a mentally competent patient </BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course the argument is pointless if you don't even know what euthanasia is and a minimum about the law before you start talking about it. </BLOCKQUOTE>
strange post :/

Meitheisman

No they won't if they know that it will kill him. This is exactly what euthanasia is and it is illegal almost everywhere on the planet. </BLOCKQUOTE>
No, you've misunderstood the system, I think. I'm almost completely sure that I'm right! </BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you're the one missing the point.
From wikipedia
"Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a human or animal who is incurably ill in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. Laws around the world vary greatly with regard to euthanasia, and are constantly subject to change as cultural values shift and better palliative care, or treatments become available. It is legal in some jurisdictions, while in others it may be criminalized."

Also here you have a list of countries and what is the law there regarding euthanasia. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Your quote does not give evidence to the point you are making

A doctor is not allowed to give treatment to a patient against their will

General Medical Council Guidance states that "[Adult competent patients] have the right to refuse 4 treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death"

"you are bound to respect an adult patient's competently made refusal of treatment even where complying with the decision will lead to the patient's death"

There is no distinction between withdrawal and withholding treatment (not a quote, my own knowledge)

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/current/library/witholdi...nce.asp#Introduction </BLOCKQUOTE>

"Active euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. Patients retain the rights to refuse medical treatment and to receive appropriate management of pain at their request (passive euthanasia), even if the patients' choices hasten their deaths. Additionally, futile or disproportionately burdensome treatments, such as life-support machines, may be withdrawn under specified circumstances."

So it isn't automatic, in some cases the patient is not allowed to ask the doctor to stop his machine.
Since this is the case I think that the law should be consistent and in an utopic world then I'd recommend what you're saying, everyone should be free to live or die or do or not do whatever they want to their body but in the real world I don't think this would be possible to apply in a consistent way so I believe that this woman should have been forced to get the blood and if she's unhappy about it too bad, I'm unhappy about the war in Iraq and I'm paying taxes for it anyway.

Meitheisman

Link to my quote

Splendid

Don't think that's true though. Most of us wants some sort of consistency. If that be the "do what you want, it's your body" as displayed with the transfusion or if it is the "no, you can't kill yourself/do drugs" is a totally different discussion. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe that's your take on it, but the first two pages were largely characterized by, "omg she's so stupid and religious make her live so we can prove how vastly superior our ideologies are!"

Scatter

yes splendid, that's precisely what EVERYONE who thinks she's an idiot was thinking mate.