retired_jhr2211

Wouldn't that have save this woman then? Or did she want to die? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Can;t tell from the reports, but the vast majority of JW's I know carry a card and have a hospital liason team that can explain what substitutes can be administered (although most NHs and worldwide hospitals alreasy have this information).

retired_mauilisa

By 1st sentence I meant 2nd, and by 2nd sentence I meant 3rd, btw!

retired_mauilisa

Oh wait, ignore that ^, I worded it correctly after all :/

retired_jhr2211

whs

Thanks for expressing it in a better way than I did :thup: </BLOCKQUOTE>

You are both now arguing what is scoially acceptable and thus cast questions over what is and isnt legal. The other context is that what this person did was perfectly legal and involved her abstaining rather than partaking. Which is far easier a legal quandry.

retired_sedimohasel

whs

Thanks for expressing it in a better way than I did :thup: </BLOCKQUOTE>

You are both now arguing what is scoially acceptable and thus cast questions over what is and isnt legal. The other context is that what this person did was perfectly legal and involved her abstaining rather than partaking. Which is far easier a legal quandry. </BLOCKQUOTE>

No we are not arguing what is or isn't legal, we're arguing in favor of consistency, I don't care whether what she did was legal or not (and I know it is).
The abstaining vs partaking argument was brought up before in this thread. What I responded to it was that a doctor is not allowed to unplug a patient if it is going to cause certain death which comes down to refusing treatment that was started when the patient was unconcious (let's say after a car accident you wake up in the hospital plugged to a machine, if this woman has the right to refuse blood imo you should have the right to refuse to be plugged to a machine)

retired_mauilisa

Are you purposefully remaining oblivious to my replies to this example and hoping that noone else reads it?

retired_sedimohasel

No I was just re-reading Teri Schiavo (sp?) case but that's not a prime example since she couldn't clearly express her will.

I still stand by my point, it's just hard to find details on lawsuits involving euthanasia but not assisted suicide which is something different.

retired_sedimohasel

"Assisted suicide laws around the world are clear in some nations but unclear – if they exist at all – in others. Just because a country has not defined its criminal code on this specific action does not mean all assisters will go free. It is a complicated state of affairs. A great many people instinctively feel that suicide and assisted suicide are such individual acts of freedom and free will that they assume there are no legal prohibitions. This fallacy has brought many people into trouble with the law. While suicide is no longer a crime – and where it is because of a failure to update the law it is not enforced – assistance remains a crime almost everywhere by some statute or other."

This goes my way for instance

retired_sedimohasel

Euthanasia, often referred to as "mercy killing," is an act or failure to act which of itself and by intention causes a person's death, with the intention to end suffering. Legally, euthanasia is classified as homicide.

Link

Note the "or failure to act" which applies perfectly to the case we are talking about.

retired_mauilisa

euthanasia and assisted suicide are not different. As it said in your quote, passive euthanasia is turning off the machines and active euthanasia is assisted suicide. I think you knew that though already?

Passive euthanasia, by stopping treatment is definitely allowed - the quotes from the GMC show that. The GMC Guidance is more reliable than assistedsuicide.org/the interim etc as it is the actual guidance that doctors here currently follow, and is discussing the exact situation of stopping treatment if the patient requests