 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Alzheimer's / January 2005Better for old to kill themselves than be a burden, says Warnock
Better for old to kill themselves than be a burden, says Warnock Country England Date 12 December 2004 Britain's leading medical ethics expert has suggested that the frail and elderly should consider suicide to stop them becoming a financial burden on their families and society. Baroness Warnock spoke on the eve of a Commons debate on the Mental Capacity Bill, which critics claim will allow "euthanasia by the back door". In an interview with The Sunday Times, she said: "I know I'm not really allowed to say it, but one of the things that would motivate me [to die] is I couldn't bear hanging on and being such a burden on people. "In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance. "If I went into a nursing home it would be a terrible waste of money that my family could use far better." Warnock, 80, a Lords' cross-bencher who helped frame Britain's legalisation on embryo research, also suggests that parents of premature babies should be charged to keep them on life support machines if doctors write off their chances of leading a healthy life. "Maybe it has come down to saying 'Okay, they can stay alive but the family will have to pay for it.' Otherwise it will be an awful drain on public resources," she said. Warnock sat on a Lords select committee which agreed on a ban on euthanasia in 1993, but last year she conceded that the law needed to be reviewed. Warnock's views are of considerable significance as she sat on an influential Lords select committee that agreed on a complete ban on euthanasia in 1993. Last year, however, she and two other peers on the committee conceded that the law needed to be reviewed and backed a private member's bill permitting assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Warnock has previously admitted that a GP enabled her own husband, Geoffrey, a former vice-chancellor of Oxford University, to die peacefully using morphine in 1995 after he was incapacitated by a lung condition. She said that her volte face on euthanasia was also influenced by the case of Diane Pretty, who suffered from motor neurone disease and unsuccessfully fought a legal battle to allow her husband to help her take her life. "That really moved me to think we must change the law," said Warnock. The bill gives legal backing to "living wills", enabling patients to refuse treatment in the event of their becoming incapacitated. Claire Rayner, president of the Patients Association, has written a living will instructing doctors not to give her life-saving treatment if she is given only three months to live or suffers brain damage following a stroke. Her husband, Des, has written a similar document. Rayner, 73, who supports the Mental Capacity Bill, has demanded in her will that a "Do not resuscitate" notice be placed above her hospital bed if she loses the ability to speak or write. The former nurse and agony aunt said: "If I have brain damage because I have had a stroke, that would be absolutely awful. Not being able to express myself, to talk or write, would be just awful. "If the doctors feel that my time has come and my life expectancy is no more than three months, I don't want them interfering. I don't want them taking any action if I have a cardiac arrest or if I have respiratory failure. I do not want to be resuscitated . . . it is my decision, not their decision." Source: Times, 12/12/2004 Hmmm, where in that article does it say that she wants *the old* to kill themselves so as not to be a burden? She says that *she* wouldnt want to be a burden.  SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > Better for old to kill themselves than be a burden, says Warnock > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Source: Times, 12/12/2004 my thoughts, too, Tumbleweed... Nick and I both have DNRs in place (actually all the legal documents we could put in place) but that is our choice. Others may not want something so explicit, and that is their right. Every year we update in case our legislators have changed anything that would null our decision. Neither of us believe in being kept alive when there would be no quality of life. And our children are aware of this--they may not like it, but they accept it. donnah > Hmmm, where in that article does it say that she wants *the old* to > kill themselves so as not to be a burden? She says that *she* [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] >> >> Source: Times, 12/12/2004 donnah <inferna90@bellsouth.net> is alleged to have said: > Nick and I both have DNRs in place (actually all the legal documents > we could put in place) but that is our choice. Others may not want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > aware of this--they may not like it, but they accept it. > donnah Isn't that a bit extreme? I'm assuming you are both in reasonably good health and otherwise look forward to years of good life. As I understand it, a DNR order says not to resuscitate if breathing or heart stops -- it says nothing about evaluating chances of recovery or quality of life. But a DNR order would stop them bringing you back from a heart attack or auto accident. SignatureJo Ann Malina, make spamthis best to find my address If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans. -- Jewish aphorism > As I > understand it, a DNR order says not to resuscitate if breathing or > heart stops -- it says nothing about evaluating chances of recovery or > quality of life. It can say whatever you want it to say. The question is whether it will be honored, and that varies from state to state according to each state's living will law. And yes, conditional DNR orders are fairly common. That's essentially what my living will is, and I've discussed the issue with my primary care doc and the holder of my health care POA, so that they have a very clear idea of my wishes. Dennis, that is why we try and make sure that ours will be honored by updating it yearly--to cover any changes that may have been imitated by state law. And our physicians are well aware of our wishes along with our families. Our attorney told us that conditional DNRs are considered to be "qualifying" and can be interpreted as wavering as to what we want done. Of course that is my state's stance... donnah >> As I >> understand it, a DNR order says not to resuscitate if breathing or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with my primary care doc and the holder of my health care POA, so > that they have a very clear idea of my wishes. > Isn't that a bit extreme? I'm assuming you are both in reasonably good > health and otherwise look forward to years of good life. As I > understand it, a DNR order says not to resuscitate if breathing or > heart stops -- it says nothing about evaluating chances of recovery or > quality of life. But a DNR order would stop them bringing you back > from a heart attack or auto accident. Not necessarily, and I think we are muddling the terms DNR and Living Will. AFAIK, a DNR is customarily executed when one already has a terminal condition or is so advanced in age that recovery from any heart stoppage or cessation of breathing would be sketchy at best. For example my grandmother-in-law was 94 and suffering from terminal spinal cancer and executed a DNR. Thankfully, pneumonia, aided by the DNR (no ventilator), took her away before the pain of her cancer became hard to manage. Likewise my great-grandparents both executed DNR statements in their mid-90s. Both died in their sleep at age 99. OTOH, my hubby and I (and our parents) have Living Wills, or what is called in NC, a Statement of Desire for a Natural Death. This document outlines one's wishes for artificial feeding, hydration, etc. (with options on each -- i.e., you can opt to be watered but not fed ;^) ) if recovery to a full life is not likely. It appoints a person to make the decision to invoke that Living Will for you, and if you want the docs to listen, it's best to have a copy in your file ahead of time. (Some are suspicious of such a form suddenly "appearing" when the LO is in extremis.) This does not prevent such things as fibrillation in case of heart attack, ventilation to assist breathing in advanced pneumonia in otherwise healthy person, induced coma to recover from brain surgery, etc. It says "don't keep me alive if I'm not living." IMHO, everyone over age of 18 should have a Living Will spelling out their wishes, whether it's "let me go" or "do everything medical science can possibly dream up and you can afford" or somewhere in between. One of the most loving things you can do for your family. It's hell to deal with your own grief and also figure out "what Mom would have wanted" and the resulting guilt and second-guessing. Songbird so well said, Songbird... I had to opt out of hydration--it could be misconstrued as a partial wish to live. Mine clearly states nothing except painkillers to ease my passing... My brother did the same thing when he was dying of brain cancer. The same hospice that helped him will be doing the same for me when my time comes. donnah >> Isn't that a bit extreme? I'm assuming you are both in reasonably >> good [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Songbird Songbird <song2871@yahoo.com> is alleged to have said: >> Isn't that a bit extreme? I'm assuming you are both in reasonably good >> health and otherwise look forward to years of good life. As I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > grandmother-in-law was 94 and suffering from terminal spinal cancer and > executed a DNR. Right, DNR "Do Not Resuscitate" means just that, not "no tube feeding," or other provisions of a living will. I wanted to make sure Donnah knew the difference, and it's clear from her response elsewhere that she does. SignatureJo Ann Malina, make spamthis best to find my address Lear: O, reason not the need: our basest beggars Are in the poorest thing superfluous: Allow not nature more than nature needs, Man's life's as cheap as beast's. King Lear, Act 2, Scene 4 Good morning, Jo Ann... In my case it is not extreme as I have health problems. And, as a nurse (no longer active), I have seen first hand what can happen, and I will do my best to prevent it. Nick watched his Mother slowly die. She was in ICU for several weeks, and it was heartbreaking to see her and know what he was going through. After she died and we went through her personal items, we found her living will. She had not told us about it nor given us a copy. We never found out if her physician had knowledge of it. He decided right then that he would not allow this to happen to him/to us. Our feeling is that others have their own ideas about quality of life and they may not agree with ours... donnah > donnah <inferna90@bellsouth.net> is alleged to have said: >> Nick and I both have DNRs in place (actually all the legal [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > quality of life. But a DNR order would stop them bringing you back > from a heart attack or auto accident. Donna, I certainly agree with you. My children know how I feel and my son & DIL have a copy of all the necessary papers. Gwen > Good morning, Jo Ann... > In my case it is not extreme as I have health problems. And, as a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > quality of life. But a DNR order would stop them bringing you back > > from a heart attack or auto accident. >Subject: Re: Better for old to kill themselves than be a burden, says Warnock >From: "donnah" inferna9@bellsouth.net [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >and they may not agree with ours... >donnah The problem is that this woman is not just saying people should be allowed to kill themselves so they won't be an increasing burden, which is grotesque in my opinion. Being terminally ill and wanting to stop agonizing pain rather than just hang on a few more weeks, or not wanting to be mindless and just kept breathing by machines, is understandable, but wanting to die so as not to burden other people is what is called being suicidal, and not just the elderly feel that way when they're depressed. But she's not just saying that, she's also talking about the elderly being a drain on resources. The elderly, even the sick elderly, are an integral part of society. They, including many dementia patients, provide comfort, support, balance, stories about the past, unconditional love and wisdom. I've met a lot of dementia patients in my mom's nursing home (from which she's returning home in a few days) and I've learned a lot from them. This woman can bite me. ___ "The sea was angry that day my friends. Like an old man sending back soup at a deli." -- Seinfeld Whoops, made a mistake, the "drain on resources" remark was about premature babies. Those darned premies, taking tax money that would be better spent on bombs. ___ "The sea was angry that day my friends. Like an old man sending back soup at a deli." -- Seinfeld > The problem is that this woman is not just saying people should be allowed > to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > she's > also talking about the elderly being a drain on resources. I was just walking with a friend whose Dad has Alz. He has made comments several times about killing himself "before I totally lose it." She and her mom are scouring the house for anything he could use, but face it, he could choose to walk in front of an oncoming train or truck at any time. His doctor is trying to get his depression under control with meds (which they have to lie to him as to their purpose), and they're just hoping they can keep him busy until he forgets he wanted to kill himself when he got to this point. This is also why I got my dad's gun away from him before Mom was diagnosed with Vasc dementia for fear she would find it and use it unintentionally. People like this make such behavior seem reasonable, ignoring the fact that other people are also involved. A friend of mine with MS did kill himself with his own pistol "while I still can." He took great pains to protect his wife -- he made sure someone else would find his body, he wheeled himself outside so the mess could be hosed down, etc. She was still devastated. Songbird ida threatened suicide constantly for years. she said she would jump off the roof of her house. zoloft helped but moving here with us helped the most. everyone needs to feel loved and cared for, and we were able to give her that, but she still needed the zoloft. SignatureRegards, Evelyn (to reply to me personally, remove 'sox") > >> The problem is that this woman is not just saying people should be [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Songbird <snip>> > People like this make such behavior seem reasonable, ignoring the fact > that other people are also involved. A friend of mine with MS did kill [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Songbird Does that mean he should have suffered for years to avoid that? Whatever choice is made in bad circumstances like that someone is going to be hurt. SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com > Does that mean he should have suffered for years to avoid that? > Whatever choice is made in bad circumstances like that someone is going to > be hurt. I'm not judging him. I have no right to judge anyone's actions. I only meant to say suicide is not a victimless action. Some will think me cold, but I think something is warped when I can "put down" an aged dog who is in pain but I can't help a LO in the same situation. IMHO, we should have a mechanism where my friend could have, probably years down the road, said "It's time to go Home" and received the help he needed to go to sleep and never wake up. Just because medicine CAN keep us alive doesn't always mean it SHOULD. Songbird >> Does that mean he should have suffered for years to avoid that? >> Whatever choice is made in bad circumstances like that someone is going [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Songbird Interesting, I read your original message as a statement that we shouldnt be able to do that :-) SignatureTumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com >>> Does that mean he should have suffered for years to avoid that? >>> Whatever choice is made in bad circumstances like that someone is going [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Interesting, I read your original message as a statement that we shouldnt > be able to do that :-) Perhaps the distinction is that it would have been easier on my friend's wife if she had been part of the decision, had been with him as he died. An unexpected and violent death, no matter the context, can always leave scars. Also, I knew my friend for more than 5 years with MS, and his life was still one that was productive and giving. He felt he had to cut it short because he could not tell if one morning he could wake up and no longer be in control of his own life. I hate to think what he might have contributed to the world -- what we missed -- in the time between those two events. And frankly I could argue both sides against the middle. It's a tough issue. Songbird Songbird > Being terminally ill and wanting to stop agonizing pain rather than > just hang on a few more weeks, or not wanting to be mindless and just kept > breathing by machines, is understandable, but wanting to die so as not to > burden other people is what is called being suicidal, and not just the elderly > feel that way when they're depressed. Some folks feel that way when they *not* depressed or suicidal, but simply because the believe strongly in not being a burden on anyone else. If folks have had a long life and don't want to stay alive when they're a burden on others, as far as I'm concerned it's their right to decide how and when they will die and the gummint should just go mind its own business. If the person wants a doctor to assist them in departing, the gummint should allow them to do so. Dennis, I agree with you... and there is another side to that as far as I am concerned. It's also about us deciding for ourselves about our quality of life. When you have a terminal condition, or one that makes life very hard to live, we should be able to say "enough is enough." I do not say that lightly, either. If two people have the same disease/condition/whatever , it does not mean their symptoms, pain levels, or prognosis is the same. Some suffer more than others. When you have given it all you can with your whole heart, and the tiredness sets in and the pain is unbearable, the choice should belong to that person. Two of my nursing sisters planned their deaths and one let it follow it's natural course. Our cancers were the same...each did what was right for them. The two who helped themselves did so with the knowledge and agreement of their loved ones...who saw first hand their suffering and wanted it to end. donnah >> Being terminally ill and wanting to stop agonizing pain rather than >> just hang on a few more weeks, or not wanting to be mindless and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > person wants a doctor to assist them in departing, the gummint > should allow them to do so. > Hmmm, where in that article does it say that she wants *the old* to kill > themselves so as not to be a burden? She says that *she* wouldnt want to be > a burden. Well in Times past, that would NOT have been the headline, but Rupert Murdoch owns the paper now. >> Hmmm, where in that article does it say that she wants *the old* to kill >> themselves so as not to be a burden? She says that *she* wouldnt want to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well in Times past, that would NOT have been the headline, but > Rupert Murdoch owns the paper now. I hear he's planning to have centre spreads of politicians in provocatively revealing poses . The bedroom walls of politicos all across the country will soon be festooned with lurid pictures of Gwynneth Dunwoody etc displaying all ;) > I hear he's planning to have centre spreads of politicians in > provocatively revealing poses . The bedroom walls of politicos all across > the country will soon be festooned with lurid pictures of Gwynneth Dunwoody > etc displaying all ;) nah, he saves that for the sun and his other tabloids. he's tried to keep the times pretty staid, though editorials have become more conservative since he bought it. apparently the crosswords are tougher than ever... Warnock can kill herself anytime she wants. The people of the world who happen to be a. compassionate and b. sane should ignore her. ___ "The sea was angry that day my friends. Like an old man sending back soup at a deli." -- Seinfeld I have to agree here. I have AD and I'm only around stage 3, but I don't want to kill my self just for the financial aspect, but rather that I don't want to end up in a later stage of AD where I'm in a nursing home and can't take care of myself. I've volunteered in a nursing home for over 2 years and the staff are just too burned out and overly busy due to staff cuts to give proper care to make the patient comfortable. I just hope I'm able to know just before I forget how to use my reaming cognitive abilities to do my suicide. PS: Namenda has changed my life with AD. I've been on it for a year come March 2005. I've been one of the few miracle cases to respond to the drug to the manufactures dream. I also supplement it with another drug, Strattera (for attention deficit disorder; and it is not a controlled drug like Ritalin). Jerry* > Better for old to kill themselves than be a burden, says Warnock > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Source: Times, 12/12/2004 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.