By: dallone.ranger
18/05/2009
1:48 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Mother wants son to die in her arms
May 18, 2009, 10:00 am
A South Austraia woman is pleading for the right to allow her son to die in her arms.
Mark Leigep, 34, has been in a vegetative state for more than three years.
His mother wants the right to "put him to sleep" humanely using morphine.
"So he can die in our arms and we can all be there when he passes away," Ms Dunn said.
Ms Dunn sought legal advice to help end her son's life about June, 2006, but her eldest son, Mark's brother Brian, was Mark's guardian and wanted him kept alive.
Brian, however, has now changed his mind and also wants Mark to die peacefully.
"When all of this happened it was pretty chaotic . . . we couldn't make the right decision back then," he said.
Should Mark be allowed to die? Leave your comments below
"Mark isn't coming back," added Ms Dunn. "He's my baby and they should let my baby go."
Mr Leigep, father to Kaitlyn, 7, suffered major head injuries in a car crash in Elizabeth in 2006.
Euthanasia is illegal in South Australia and his situation sparked a right-to-life debate at the time of him entering a coma. Health Minister John Hill this month urged families to have "serious debate" about the services terminally ill people want and need in the "last days of their lives", but did not advocate euthanasia.
Doctors removed Mr Leigep's feeding tube twice in 2006, but it was replaced following family disagreements that year.
The tube was then removed by doctors again in the same year, but Royal Adelaide Hospital administration ordered the tube be replaced.
After spending more than a year at the RAH, Mr Leigep is now at the Julia Farr Centre.
Brian's brother said, ""You do cling on to them because you love them and you want to give them any chance possible. But they don't wake up. This is not life anymore. |
|
By: dallone.ranger
18/05/2009
1:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Con't;
"My best outcome would be for Mark to just go as quickly as possible with the least amount of pain and the least amount of suffering."
It is possible the family could stop feeding Mr Leigep, but Ms Dunn said they did not want to starve him to death.
"I just want the Government to realise that technology says Mark's not coming back. He's brain dead," she said.
"I want them to let him go peacefully and humanely with his family around him, so we can have our closure and so Mark's not dying on his own."
Ms Dunn lives in Venus Bay and no longer visits Mr Leigep. She says it is too distressing.
"The room smells like death. It's just the worst smell," she said. "When I go into that room, it might sound crazy, but I get the feeling he's screaming at me: `What are you doing, Mum? Why am I still here? What's going on?".
Anyone who helps Mr Leigep die now would be guilty of non-voluntary euthanasia.
Medical surveys from around the world, however, have found doctors do commit non-voluntary euthanasia in certain cases where they want to act in the best interests of the patient and family. |
|
By: dallone.ranger
18/05/2009
1:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Strange how the only legal way to let her son die is to starve him to death. What kind of bloody world is this.
The family should have their wish and be allowed to let their son die in their arms.
Bloody religion and bloody politics. |
|
By: galloping.gerty
18/05/2009
1:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
galloping.gerty Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I think it's wrong to starve him to death. I also think it's wrong to kill him. If he's on life support, the life support can be turned off. If not, he's alive.
It seems to me that the family want an end to THEIR pain and suffering, not his.
Give him IV food and fluids, keep him comfortable.
Whether or not he wants to die is his choice, not theirs. |
|
By: buzzanddidj
18/05/2009
2:02 pm Yahoo! Profile:
buzzanddidj Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
'Give him IV food and fluids, keep him comfortable'
Comfortable ?
I doubt that's an issue to the brain dead
. |
|
By: tropicalformular
18/05/2009
2:21 pm Yahoo! Profile:
tropicalformular Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Surely somewhere along the way common sense needs to step into the ring, I think it's gotten to the point where there is no longer any point in keeping him alive. |
|
By: zita.ford
18/05/2009
2:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
zita.ford Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Stories like this really move me because when i was 16 i did work experience in a nusring home. One of the patients
was in her mid 40's and comatose from a brain injury she recieved 13 years earlier due to being hit by a speeding car as she tried to cross the road with her husband. He was lucky - he died on impact. Being kept alive like this is not "Living". |
|
By: dallone.ranger
18/05/2009
2:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I think it's wrong to starve him to death. I also think it's wrong to kill him. If he's on life support, the life support can be turned off. If not, he's alive.
It seems to me that the family want an end to THEIR pain and suffering, not his.
Give him IV food and fluids, keep him comfortable.
Whether or not he wants to die is his choice, not theirs.
~~~~~
Unfortunately brain dead people are incapable of making any choices, so clearly, as for children, they have to be made for them.
As for the family wanting to end their own pain, I expect they do. Can you imagine what it must be like for them. There will never be a good outcome for their son and brother. He will remain brain dead forever, eyes closed. Would you want your son to remain in that state forever?
Can't believe how selfish some are, wanting to impose their beliefs on a family suffering so much. |
|
By: loopygiggles
18/05/2009
3:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
loopygiggles Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| If there is no chance of him every coming back then let him go. I can't imagine it was an easy decision for his mother to make. And there is nothing to tell us whether or not he is in pain. He could very well be just unable to say or do anything about it. |
|
By: yourdeadsoul
18/05/2009
4:31 pm Yahoo! Profile:
yourdeadsoul Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I agree - They should be able to let him go. |
|
By: deborahmac09
18/05/2009
6:18 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deborahmac09 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Strange how the only legal way to let her son die is to starve him to death. What kind of bloody world is this.
_________________________ ________________________
That is pretty disgraceful in a so called civilised country.
Yeah Galloping. gerty I agree that if life support is the only thing keeping him alive it should be turned off.
But I don't agree that he has a choice, clearly he is not able to make that choice for himself. |
|
By: peaceleo69
22/05/2009
1:38 am Yahoo! Profile:
peaceleo69 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
It is possible the family could stop feeding Mr Leigep, but Ms Dunn said they did not want to starve him to death.
><><
is it not a sick society we live in ; when the law and physicians will allow for this outcome-but will not allow a gentle and peaceful death; as we would give to a beloved pet!?
If we allowed an animal to starve to death-we would be prosecutued.
But we can go to the vet and hold it and comfort it,while if goes to a final sleep.
But if it is a human being involved-they either have to take thier own life in some violent way and die alone or starve slowely and painfully to death in the presence of their loved ones!
Where IS the humanity in that!
Just disgusting!
The poor mother-he is already gone by all accounts-but legality wont let his body go!
Sadly ;the Mother seems to have come across the least compassionate of the medical fraternity!
Or is it just the revenue they are making from the govt; from a patient ,who costs a lot to keep in a vegetative state but is of little trouble to them! |
|
By: dallone.ranger
22/05/2009
10:42 am Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Clearly, voluntary euthanasia, as well as involuntary euthanasia, need to be legal here. The NT did it's bit for voluntary euthanasia a while back, before the federal gov't hit it on the head. And I did my bit by handing out how to vote cards for a VE supporting pollie years ago.
Now it's up to you mob in the states to maintain the rage and contact your elected members and tell them what 'you' want done. It's easy to email them. |
|
By: enzedirishnan@xtra.co.nz
23/05/2009
1:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
enzedirishnan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
A feeding tube is artifical life support.
He may be getting the nutrients through the tube to keep his body alive but that is all it is doing.
He is not a functioning person
When someone is dying of cancer, for example, they reach a point where they are no longer taking anything orally, whether it be food, fluid or medication.
They are not forced to eat or take medications to keep them alive.
That is barbaric and cruel and distressiing for the dying person and their family.
Giving someone medication with the intent of causing their death is murder.
Giving someone mdeication with the intent of relieving their pain and distress, but also knowing that the medication may hasten the death process (which is already occuring) is not murder.
The important word here is 'intent'.
This family would benefit from time with experienced palliative care experts who could answer their questions and put any options to them. They could also help the family understand the dying process.
I hope they and their son find a peaceful resolution very soon. |
|
By: trandiode
23/05/2009
1:10 am Yahoo! Profile:
trandiode Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Let him go with no pain and his dignity intact ! Thats not euthanasia thats humane compassion and respect for a human beings dignity ! |
|
By: galloping.gerty
23/05/2009
2:14 am Yahoo! Profile:
galloping.gerty Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"Unfortunately brain dead people are incapable of making any choices"
Lots of people are incapable of making their own choices. What about dementia patients? Should we give all of them green dreams too? What about someone who's completely paralysed? Should they be knocked off too? What about those with severe mental illness? They have no quality of life, they give their families heart break, they can't make their own decisions. Better put them out of our misery too, huh?
What exactly is the motivation for killing this man? He's not in pain. If he's as brain dead as you say, he's not suffering. So what gives anyone the right to kill him?
How about we just knock off anyone who becomes an inconvenience, huh?
If it were my son, I'd be there at his side, every day, taking care of him. I wouldn't want to kill him.
When someone is in a coma but is not technically brain dead, we take care of them, not knowing if or when they'll come out of the coma. We wash them and feed them and massage their limbs. People have been declared brain dead before, and have woken up one day. So who gets the right to decide that this man should die?
Do you think it's as simple as overdosing him with morpheine? Morpheine causes respiratory arrest. Ever been suffocated? It's not pleasant. But that's right... he's brain dead, he won't suffer. He's not suffering. So why are we killing him, again? Oh that's right, he's taking up bed space and his family are sick of looking at him. I forgot.
So many of you are complete wastes of space and oxygen that inflict pain on people every day by your mere existence.
Can we euthanase you too? PLEASE? |
|
By: galloping.gerty
23/05/2009
2:23 am Yahoo! Profile:
galloping.gerty Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"And there is nothing to tell us whether or not he is in pain. He could very well be just unable to say or do anything about it."
Yes there is. If he's brain dead, he's not in any pain. What exactly do you people think brain dead means?
He is not suffering. To kill him is not being kind to him. He doesn't care. He's brain dead.
So the argument that it's a mercy killing that is putting him out of his misery is absolutely ridiculous.
Call it as it is. It's not for him. It's for the family.
How about we just murder anyone who gives their family grief? |
|
By: deborahmac09
23/05/2009
11:25 am Yahoo! Profile:
deborahmac09 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| galloping gerty, brain dead means dead. His body is only kept working by a machine, he will never get better, he is already gone. Therefore turning off the machine is not killing him, because he is already gone. Let the man have dignity in death. Since he is dead, let his family say their good byes, and then start their grieving process. |
|
By: galloping.gerty
24/05/2009
12:39 am Yahoo! Profile:
galloping.gerty Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Didn't read my posts terribly well, did you? |
|
By: galloping.gerty
24/05/2009
12:47 am Yahoo! Profile:
galloping.gerty Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Where does it say his body is being kept alive by a machine, by the way?
If it was, his family could opt to turn the machines off.
There's no machines.
His body continues living.
Therefore, the options are to starve him to death or to actively kill his body.
I don't believe either option is justifiable by saying they want to end his suffering. They want to end THEIR suffering, not his.
So if the family is allowed to kill this man's body so as to alleviate their burden, then why should other families not also be allowed to do the same with relatives who have dementia or similar conditions which render them cognitively impaired?
If the man's body is able to go on living on its own, then where is the justification for killing it? Or is "living" solely determined by the presence of cognition?
Are we under no obligation to care for someone's body while their "mind" is temporarily indisposed?
What of people who are in prolonged comas, who are not brain dead? There's no guarantee that they'll ever wake up. So 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 years... how long do we continue to feed and hydrate their bodies before the burden on the family is justifiably relieved?
You guys don't seem to think about the extended consequences of these decisions you make saying that it's ok to decide the fate of individuals.
You're in for the quick, easy answers without giving a moments thought to the bigger picture. |
|
By: enzedirishnan@xtra.co.nz
24/05/2009
1:21 am Yahoo! Profile:
enzedirishnan@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
gerty,
he's got a 'feeding tube' in.
Doesnt clarify whether it's a nasogastric or PEG.
This is whats keeping him alive, his body is not living on it's own.
It's artifical.
If it was removed he would die within a relatively short timeframe.
'Starving' is an emotive term which scares people who have no experience of the dying process.
Of course the family are suffering. They are watching their son and brother vegetate. They know him better than anyone and they would know whether or not he would have wanted to 'live' like this.
The wider consequences of a decision like this probably do not concern this family at the moment. They have enough to cope with. Their focus is on the body of a man who used to be a living, walking, talking, eating, son and brother. Now he is being kept alive by a feeding tube. |
|
By: buggerit67
24/05/2009
11:26 am Yahoo! Profile:
buggerit67 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
okay, what about this scenario.
A once independent guy in his 40's, does not have parents, is not brain dead but has a multitude of other mitigating conditions and circumstances have him slowly dying.
He has absolutely had enough and very comfortable going to rest in a comfortable manner.
Otherwise there is only further antagonism, pressure, and anguish to an agony that forces him to find a cliff or some nightmare method.
how much for morph
anyone with info pls email me |
|
By: unidentifiedbloke
24/05/2009
12:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
unidentifiedbloke Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"They are watching their son and brother vegetate. They know him better than anyone and they would know whether or not he would have wanted to 'live' like this."
Who would rather "live" like that than be dead?
I think euthanasia should be legalised. May God be with them. |
|
By: dallone.ranger
24/05/2009
3:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dallone.ranger Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I think something is happening in Tas as we speak regarding legalising euthanasia. Heard on the radio on Fri I think. |
|
By: steve_ropa
24/05/2009
6:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
steve_ropa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
***And I did my bit by handing out how to vote cards for a VE supporting pollie years ago.***
you advocate murder, but then thats not surprising considering your racists opinions towards the aboriginal population.
you can fool some of the people some of the time but........ |
|
