People are lazy, you need to give them to meat to chew on without having to click.
Quote:
A terminally ill patient does not have the right to prevent doctors from starving him to death in the final stages of his illness, European judges have ruled.
The European Court of Human Rights rejected the plea of Leslie Burke, 46, for doctors to continue giving him food and fluids after he is no longer able to communicate.
The judges refused to overturn the ruling of the Appeal Court in London last year, ending a court battle between Mr Burke and the British General Medical Council (GMC) that began more than three years ago. The Appeal Court concluded that doctors had the right to withdraw artificial nourishment and water if they believed it was “in the patient’s best interests”.
|
So the ECJ backed a British court for a change, but have effectively said that doctors have the right to withdraw food and water, if the patient isn't capable of taking the nourishment on board themselves, in this case.
Well, it's putting a lot of trust in the Doctors judgement. Whether the doctors will be making that judgement for the right reasons (IE there is nil chance of recovery) or more controversial ones (free up a bed, save money, etc), is another matter.
It's one of those grey areas for me. I would rather doctors had the say, rather than judges and politicians. The patient themselves requesting otherwise before the event makes it pretty tough though.
It's another one of those tough areas where there is no right answer for me. Do we really want vital resources being taken up by the living dead, meaning others could miss out or not get the care they really need?
If you are rich you have the option of going private I guess. Do the less well off have the right, to expect society to sustain their bodies, with little to no hope of recovery, maybe at the expense of others?
Again we are back to judgement and I would rather the doctors made it.