Tweet
[Serious Thread] Medical Definition of Death
In a previous Thread I started regarding Organ Donation notyoueither raised the very serious and possible link with the issue of misconduct by medical staff in premature termination of life by withdrawal of treatment. Whilst I do not regard these issues to be one in the same it does raise very serious moral and ethical questions.
In the UK the withdrawal of life support is done in a very ad hoc and somewhat arbitrary fashion by clinicians deciding such cases by persuading next of kin that further treatment is worthless. In the absence of any next of kin the decision is entirely made by medical staff without reference to any statute or mandatory code of practice. The General Medical Council does offer guidelines but these are not obligatory.
How can death be defined in the case of a long-term coma patient? How badly must a human being be damaged before someone decides that recovery would be worthless anyway? Just how long can someone be in a state where no sign of brain activity be detected before someone pulls the plug?
People have emerged from comas many years after a case could be made for a logical judgment that further treatment was worthless. The decision upon whether or not quality of life would be so low that the person would be better off dead anyway would once again be based upon medical advice.
This is a terrible decision for anyone to have to make as it could in one case be effectively murder whilst in another a sound medical judgment based upon all clinical evidence.
What laws should be in place to both protect people and, at the same time, prevent pointless waste of medical resource? Can anyone be trusted to decide upon a limit of suffering that another person be made to endure? If someone does find themselves 'saved' but utterly incapable of independent thought or action can a third party decide that they knew this would be the case and have ended treatment?
I know nothing of the laws in other nations but would be be interested to know and also how people view this complex moral and ethical issue.
In the UK the withdrawal of life support is done in a very ad hoc and somewhat arbitrary fashion by clinicians deciding such cases by persuading next of kin that further treatment is worthless. In the absence of any next of kin the decision is entirely made by medical staff without reference to any statute or mandatory code of practice. The General Medical Council does offer guidelines but these are not obligatory.
How can death be defined in the case of a long-term coma patient? How badly must a human being be damaged before someone decides that recovery would be worthless anyway? Just how long can someone be in a state where no sign of brain activity be detected before someone pulls the plug?
People have emerged from comas many years after a case could be made for a logical judgment that further treatment was worthless. The decision upon whether or not quality of life would be so low that the person would be better off dead anyway would once again be based upon medical advice.
This is a terrible decision for anyone to have to make as it could in one case be effectively murder whilst in another a sound medical judgment based upon all clinical evidence.
What laws should be in place to both protect people and, at the same time, prevent pointless waste of medical resource? Can anyone be trusted to decide upon a limit of suffering that another person be made to endure? If someone does find themselves 'saved' but utterly incapable of independent thought or action can a third party decide that they knew this would be the case and have ended treatment?
I know nothing of the laws in other nations but would be be interested to know and also how people view this complex moral and ethical issue.
Comment