[Serious] Total locked in syndrome and assisted dying

[Duty]

[brewer]

[BrokenQuill92]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Anyone should have the right to end their life on their own terms, but it has to BE on their terms. The locked in can’t give consent for such an action, and to end their lives would be murder.

Boru

[Duty]

Thank you all for the responses - as brewer points out (thankfully) I might be conflating permanent vegetative state with total locked in syndrome and I am not aware of the specific diagnoses for the utterly paralysed residents. I've only been working there two weeks - rollercoaster, thy name is care work. 

Just to say, Boru me old mucker, this is far from clean cut straight forward type stuff as your comment appears. From wiki on permanent vegetative state: 

Lack of legal clarity[edit]
Unlike brain death, permanent vegetative state (PVS) is recognized by statute law as death in only a very few legal systems. In the US, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion.[5] In England, Wales and Scotland, the legal precedent for withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in cases of patients in a PVS was set in 1993 in the case of Tony Bland, who sustained catastrophic anoxic brain injury in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.[4] An application to the Court of Protection is no longer required before nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn or withheld from PVS (or 'minimally conscious' – MCS) patients.[6]

This legal grey area has led to vocal advocates that those in PVS should be allowed to die. Others are equally determined that, if recovery is at all possible, care should continue. The existence of a small number of diagnosed PVS cases that have eventually resulted in improvement makes defining recovery as "impossible" particularly difficult in a legal sense.[7] This legal and ethical issue raises questions about autonomy, quality of life, appropriate use of resources, the wishes of family members, and professional responsibilities.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thank you all for the responses - as brewer points out (thankfully) I might be conflating permanent vegetative state with total locked in syndrome and I am not aware of the specific diagnoses for the utterly paralysed residents. I've only been working there two weeks - rollercoaster, thy name is care work. 

Just to say, Boru me old mucker, this is far from clean cut straight forward type stuff as your comment appears. From wiki on permanent vegetative state: 

Lack of legal clarity[edit]
Unlike brain death, permanent vegetative state (PVS) is recognized by statute law as death in only a very few legal systems. In the US, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion.[5] In England, Wales and Scotland, the legal precedent for withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in cases of patients in a PVS was set in 1993 in the case of Tony Bland, who sustained catastrophic anoxic brain injury in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.[4] An application to the Court of Protection is no longer required before nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn or withheld from PVS (or 'minimally conscious' – MCS) patients.[6]

This legal grey area has led to vocal advocates that those in PVS should be allowed to die. Others are equally determined that, if recovery is at all possible, care should continue. The existence of a small number of diagnosed PVS cases that have eventually resulted in improvement makes defining recovery as "impossible" particularly difficult in a legal sense.[7] This legal and ethical issue raises questions about autonomy, quality of life, appropriate use of resources, the wishes of family members, and professional responsibilities.

It’s clean cut straight forward as far as I’m concerned.

But you raise fair points, which is why everyone should have a living will/DNR.

Boru

[Duty]

Cool, BTW they call it DNAR (Attempt) in the hospital I'm in....and most residents have chosen that option, according to the board.

[zebo-the-fat]

How do you feel about euthanasia for someone who is suffering and wants to end it but is physically unable to do so himself?

[brewer]

How do you feel about euthanasia for someone who is suffering and wants to end it but is physically unable to do so himself?

I think that ultimately an option should be made available. However there are many many factors that need to be assessed prior to making the option available and should be considered on a case by case basis.

[Jackie]

How do you feel about euthanasia for someone who is suffering and wants to end it but is physically unable to do so himself?

I'd argue the best way to avoid any end of life conflicts over your own life, is to put it in writing and or video as to what your wishes are in case you cannot make decisions for yourself. My mom had a written and very clear DNR legal document. 

I can say that even if I was aware but could not move or speak, that is a severe quality of life loss. Many times in my late mother's decline, she expressed hating the hospital, not science, just being there, she hated that her body wasn't functioning like here very active life, and hated being poked and prodded. Quality of life matters. My mom didn't quit, she was simply tired. The human body wears out, every time. 

I'd only say that end of life decisions should not be forced by government, but merely a decision made between the terminal person and their doctor. 

Putting it in writing and or on video really makes it easier on everyone.