100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: euthanasia | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed. so did she die having her feeding tube removed?? or did they end her life?? I wonder did her father die (self inflicted) due to the decision and could not handle his choice in the matter of her death? We have a "do not resucitate" law here. If it is known of the patients wishes to allow them to die due to irreversable damage. Coma, vegitative state, living only because of machinery....then they will allow them to die. Trying to make them as comfortable as possible with meds. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had to have my Shepherd euthanized after 9 years of faithful companionship and love. It was the hardest thing I have ever done. It still haunts me to this day. This was 5 years ago. I will still cry and feel guilt.
Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nancy's father, Joe, committed suicide in 1996, after being exhausted by the emotions of the legal fight and beaten down by the subsequent criticism that his family endured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
um, i don't understand how...if you win the right to die...why do they just remove the feeding tube? why not give a painless shot?
starvation just seems so very cruel... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
um, i don't understand how...if you win the right to die...why do they just remove the feeding tube? why not give a painless shot? starvation just seems so very cruel... starvations took 11 days and you can't do the painful shot that is considered murder .. case law is really clear on this topic ,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nancy's father, Joe, committed suicide in 1996, after being exhausted by the emotions of the legal fight and beaten down by the subsequent criticism that his family endured. How do we really know this to the fact about the father? Does anyone ever really know what we think, feel? Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not really but I used to see him around town and people would yell at him .. MURDERER .. they arrested 15 people the day they pulled the tube out .. the press the legal battle I am sure it all took it's toll on him ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
um, i don't understand how...if you win the right to die...why do they just remove the feeding tube? why not give a painless shot? starvation just seems so very cruel... starvations took 11 days and you can't do the painful shot that is considered murder .. case law is really clear on this topic ,, how is starvation NOT murder? man, if i had to choose between the two...i'd want an overdose of morphine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed. so did she die having her feeding tube removed?? or did they end her life?? I wonder did her father die (self inflicted) due to the decision and could not handle his choice in the matter of her death? We have a "do not resucitate" law here. If it is known of the patients wishes to allow them to die due to irreversable damage. Coma, vegitative state, living only because of machinery....then they will allow them to die. Trying to make them as comfortable as possible with meds. Kat hi, so for example i was poorly with heart problems and there was a high chance of my heart stopping again, and i WANTED to be resusciated. can my parents tell the doctors to NOT resuscitate me, even though my wishes were to be resusiated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed. so did she die having her feeding tube removed?? or did they end her life?? I wonder did her father die (self inflicted) due to the decision and could not handle his choice in the matter of her death? We have a "do not resucitate" law here. If it is known of the patients wishes to allow them to die due to irreversable damage. Coma, vegitative state, living only because of machinery....then they will allow them to die. Trying to make them as comfortable as possible with meds. Kat hi, so for example i was poorly with heart problems and there was a high chance of my heart stopping again, and i WANTED to be resusciated. can my parents tell the doctors to NOT resuscitate me, even though my wishes were to be resusiated. If it can be proven that your wishes were to be resucitated, you would then be done. No one can over ride your wishes, either way. But, must be proven, by friends, family or clergy. Maybe even a will or a lawyer. Kat I feel sad compassion for the man that killed himself. People can and will be so cruel. Life has mountains that are sometimes so hard to climb. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when a criminal has the death penalty, and they kill him or her, they use a cocktail of meds to kill them, they use that same cocktail of drugs when they are ending the life of someone suffering.
ive read up on this a lot, they say with some people, the drugs they use dont kill them straight away, sometimes it takes hours, and it said some were lying there in agony waiting to finally die. for a criminal whos murdered how many people in my opinion deserves that, but for someone who is ending there life because they are suffering so bad, and never done a crime in there life, DOESNT deserve that. that person has the right to pass peacefully with dignity. that would be my main worry, if someone i love was having someone ending there life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
um, i don't understand how...if you win the right to die...why do they just remove the feeding tube? why not give a painless shot? starvation just seems so very cruel... starvations took 11 days and you can't do the painful shot that is considered murder .. case law is really clear on this topic ,, how is starvation NOT murder? man, if i had to choose between the two...i'd want an overdose of morphine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not debating any of this with you I am simply sighting Case law .. Please don't take it personal it is law nnot personal feelings .. not taking it personally...i haven't actually made my feelings on euthanasia known. i just feel that STARVING someone is...somehow more cruel than a simple shot to end things quickly and painlessly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am from Missouri and we actually had the original case law ,, her name was nancy curzan .. please remember her she was a great person and brave person.. her family won the right to die case .. I didn't consider her as a case of euthanasia. Do you? Yes , her quality of life was nothing and she won the right to die .. I consider that a form or euthanasia .. She was a very brave person and kudos to her family ... what was wrong with her??? that she had no quality of life?? On January 11, 1983, she lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope. In 1987 her parents asked to have Cruzan's feeding tube removed, but the hospital demanded a court order to that effect.The opinion of the Court states "for purposes of this case, we assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition" (497 US at 279). (The Court noted that "most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent ... or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right" 497 US at 262). The Court also held that Missouri was able to require a standard of "clear and convincing evidence" with regard to a person's wishes, and that "the State may properly decline to make judgments about the 'quality' of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual" (497 US at 283). After the US Supreme Court ruling, three close friends of Cruzan came forward with evidence that her wishes expressed when she was competent were that she would want the tube removed. The lower court then ruled this was clear and convincing evidence, and the decision was appealed. so did she die having her feeding tube removed?? or did they end her life?? I wonder did her father die (self inflicted) due to the decision and could not handle his choice in the matter of her death? We have a "do not resucitate" law here. If it is known of the patients wishes to allow them to die due to irreversable damage. Coma, vegitative state, living only because of machinery....then they will allow them to die. Trying to make them as comfortable as possible with meds. Kat hi, so for example i was poorly with heart problems and there was a high chance of my heart stopping again, and i WANTED to be resusciated. can my parents tell the doctors to NOT resuscitate me, even though my wishes were to be resusiated. If it can be proven that your wishes were to be resucitated, you would then be done. No one can over ride your wishes, either way. But, must be proven, by friends, family or clergy. Maybe even a will or a lawyer. Kat I feel sad compassion for the man that killed himself. People can and will be so cruel. Life has mountains that are sometimes so hard to climb. Kat ok, lets say my whole life ive always said to my parents dont ever pull the plug. for example i was in a car accident seriously injured, being ventalated etc, what gives my parents the right to tell the doctors to pull the plug, when ive told them in my life to never do that?? whos got the right to make that decision, the doctors, or parents?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Its not legal in the states but it happens occasionally. It all depends on the doctor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not really but I used to see him around town and people would yell at him .. MURDERER .. they arrested 15 people the day they pulled the tube out .. the press the legal battle I am sure it all took it's toll on him .. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in the states you have the right to a living will and anyone that does not have one is CRAZY ..this is where you wishes can be put in writing and a record of it .. to protect yourself you also list your durable power of attorney in this document or can appoint a medical power of attorney
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its not legal in the states but it happens occasionally. It all depends on the doctor.
your right, there was a doctor here, going into old peoples home and injecting them with drugs which killed them almost straight away.he killed a lot of people. he wasnt doing it because they were suffering, he was just a pysco. well he was found out, and put in jail, and if i remember correctly he hung himself and died. i also think i remember them saying he was addicted to pethidine/demerol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in the states you have the right to a living will and anyone that does not have one is CRAZY ..this is where you wishes can be put in writing and a record of it .. to protect yourself you also list your durable power of attorney in this document or can appoint a medical power of attorney interesting |
|
|
|
|
