Fop 1 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 My job is always boring. All I do is babysit incontinent ladies and wait for them to die. I miss surgery. And they say compassion has all but been lost in the NHS. Nowt to do with a lack of compassion mate. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything useful - as soon as the patients get quite ill it's just assumed that "this is their time" and we stop everything. It's very frustrating. Aye that's a different issue, assisted suicide is illegal, yet it's effectively done in a low tech way in most hospitals every day. No. Not treating a chest infection with antibiotics in a frail, deteriorating patient is not 'assisted suicide'. I suppose you could classify deliberately increasing a patients' dose of morphine, so that they become opiate toxic and go into respiratory arrest, like that. But we don't do that. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). As is terminal dehydration etc. It's one of the things that always puzzles me, that effective euthanasia (official or not ) will sometimes be given to terminal patients (and rightly so, it's usually the kindest thing to do), yet equally in other situations they'll just let someone drag on for days and even weeks knowing they are going to die simply from the withdrawal of treatment. There is a clear distinction between not providing treatment that might prolong somebody's life, and direct intervention (such as deliberate overdosing or poisoning) to end someone's life. The latter could be termed as euthanasia, or assisted suicide. There is a big, big difference between allowing someone to die and killing them. The bit in bold is completely untrue. In this country anyway. Semantics to assuage the lawyers (especially in the case of say terminal dehydration - death is a certainty no "might" about it). But I know why it's done (no need to try and make apologist statements), I'm just saying it's strange and rather hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7095 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 At least after Woolies is gone we'll still have pic 'n' mix threads on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 My job is always boring. All I do is babysit incontinent ladies and wait for them to die. I miss surgery. And they say compassion has all but been lost in the NHS. Nowt to do with a lack of compassion mate. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything useful - as soon as the patients get quite ill it's just assumed that "this is their time" and we stop everything. It's very frustrating. Aye that's a different issue, assisted suicide is illegal, yet it's effectively done in a low tech way in most hospitals every day. No. Not treating a chest infection with antibiotics in a frail, deteriorating patient is not 'assisted suicide'. I suppose you could classify deliberately increasing a patients' dose of morphine, so that they become opiate toxic and go into respiratory arrest, like that. But we don't do that. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). As is terminal dehydration etc. It's one of the things that always puzzles me, that effective euthanasia (official or not ) will sometimes be given to terminal patients (and rightly so, it's usually the kindest thing to do), yet equally in other situations they'll just let someone drag on for days and even weeks knowing they are going to die simply from the withdrawal of treatment. There is a clear distinction between not providing treatment that might prolong somebody's life, and direct intervention (such as deliberate overdosing or poisoning) to end someone's life. The latter could be termed as euthanasia, or assisted suicide. There is a big, big difference between allowing someone to die and killing them. The bit in bold is completely untrue. In this country anyway. Semantics to assuage the lawyers (especially in the case of say terminal dehydration - death is a certainty no "might" about it). But I know why it's done (no need to try and make apologist statements), I'm just saying it's strange and rather hypocritical. It's more than a semantic difference, and I'm talking about it from an ethical point of view rather than a legal one. As for the bit in bold, you've completely misunderstood what I meant. If someone is very frail with multiple comorbidities then they could still die of a pneumonia whether they are treated with antibiotics or not. "death is a certainty no "might" about it" is a completely irrelevent, superfluous and unneccessarily dramatic turn of phrase that you've shoe-horned in there in a misguided attempt to take the moral high ground. For a change. And I repeat, people are not euthanised in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 (edited) How can it be 'assisted suicide' if, for instance, the patient doesn't intentionally want to end their own life? Hence the argument for effective manslaughter in some cases. Although the real issue is really the whole doing it but pretending not to hypocrisy. No what I mean is that your point is wrong. You said it was 'assisted suicide' but it's not. They don't want to kill themselves, they just don't want to prolong their lives in such a way. I should imagine that there'd be plenty of families hacked off if a loved one's death had been recorded as suicide in the above circumstances. The patient is not committing suicide by refusing medication that will prolong their life and hence the healthcare professional isn't assisting a suicide either. I take your point on the 'real issue' remark though. Edited December 31, 2008 by manc-mag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob97 0 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Been canny lucky in that I have been able to work from home. Basically checking for any emails coming in. Had 1 so been a lazy day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 My job is always boring. All I do is babysit incontinent ladies and wait for them to die. I miss surgery. And they say compassion has all but been lost in the NHS. Nowt to do with a lack of compassion mate. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything useful - as soon as the patients get quite ill it's just assumed that "this is their time" and we stop everything. It's very frustrating. Aye that's a different issue, assisted suicide is illegal, yet it's effectively done in a low tech way in most hospitals every day. No. Not treating a chest infection with antibiotics in a frail, deteriorating patient is not 'assisted suicide'. I suppose you could classify deliberately increasing a patients' dose of morphine, so that they become opiate toxic and go into respiratory arrest, like that. But we don't do that. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). As is terminal dehydration etc. It's one of the things that always puzzles me, that effective euthanasia (official or not ) will sometimes be given to terminal patients (and rightly so, it's usually the kindest thing to do), yet equally in other situations they'll just let someone drag on for days and even weeks knowing they are going to die simply from the withdrawal of treatment. There is a clear distinction between not providing treatment that might prolong somebody's life, and direct intervention (such as deliberate overdosing or poisoning) to end someone's life. The latter could be termed as euthanasia, or assisted suicide. There is a big, big difference between allowing someone to die and killing them. The bit in bold is completely untrue. In this country anyway. Semantics to assuage the lawyers (especially in the case of say terminal dehydration - death is a certainty no "might" about it). But I know why it's done (no need to try and make apologist statements), I'm just saying it's strange and rather hypocritical. It's more than a semantic difference, and I'm talking about it from an ethical point of view rather than a legal one. As for the bit in bold, you've completely misunderstood what I meant. If someone is very frail with multiple comorbidities then they could still die of a pneumonia whether they are treated with antibiotics or not. "death is a certainty no "might" about it" is a completely irrelevent, superfluous and unneccessarily dramatic turn of phrase that you've shoe-horned in there in a misguided attempt to take the moral high ground. For a change. And I repeat, people are not euthanised in this country. Which is my point (in not terminal disease cases anyway), they are left to die (it may be kinder and certainly quicker to leave them out with the bins for exposure to take care of them). Dogs are often treated more humanely than that. When treatment is stopped and death is a certainty (as in terminal dehydration), where is the justification (moral, ethical or legal) for the several day to up to 2 weeks "waiting time"? You're probably be prosecuted for animal cruelty for doing that to a dog in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 How can it be 'assisted suicide' if, for instance, the patient doesn't intentionally want to end their own life? Hence the argument for effective manslaughter in some cases. Although the real issue is really the whole doing it but pretending not to hypocrisy. No what I mean is that your point is wrong. You said it was 'assisted suicide' but it's not. They don't want to kill themselves, they just don't want to prolong their lives in such a way. I should imagine that there'd be plenty of families hacked off if a loved one's death had been recorded as suicide in the above circumstances. The patient is not committing suicide by refusing medication that will prolong their life and hence the healthcare professional isn't assisting a suicide either. I take your point on the 'real issue' remark though. It depend what you're talking about in many terminal disease cases they do and it is (effectively). In other case they (the patient) do not (or have no say), but treatment is withdrawn and that goes down to the manslaughter argument. I know you just like to argue with me, but you're really NOT arguing with me, no matter how hard you are trying too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Again it depends on the circumstance, some it is, some it isn't (it's manslaughter), both are mentioned above - so you may think you're arguing with Fop, but as usual you're actually arguing with yourself. Logic - and I can see why you stick with property law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Again it depends on the circumstance, some it is, some it isn't (it's manslaughter), both are mentioned above - so you may think you're arguing with Fop, but as usual you're actually arguing with yourself. Logic - and I can see why you stick with property law. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). Your post no.22. You clearly state that it is assisted suicide when it is not. The bit in brackets that follows is then just gobbledygook/your train of thought where you eventually engage brain and it dawns on you that if the principal act is not a suicide then clearly it can't be classed as an 'assisted suicide' either. Oh and I'm not a property lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshore Toon 0 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 How could it be dead coming towards the end of the year? The last few weeks have been absolutely mental for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve 0 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 (edited) Fop, I'd tell you to shut the hell up before you embarrass yourself but you're way past that point now and it's never stopped you before. It's obvious you've never worked a single day in healthcare before because you're spouting complete shit. Edited January 1, 2009 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizza 105 Posted January 1, 2009 Share Posted January 1, 2009 My work was dead yesterday, ended up getting sent home at 2. Now off until Tuesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Again it depends on the circumstance, some it is, some it isn't (it's manslaughter), both are mentioned above - so you may think you're arguing with Fop, but as usual you're actually arguing with yourself. Logic - and I can see why you stick with property law. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). Your post no.22. You clearly state that it is assisted suicide when it is not. The bit in brackets that follows is then just gobbledygook/your train of thought where you eventually engage brain and it dawns on you that if the principal act is not a suicide then clearly it can't be classed as an 'assisted suicide' either. Oh and I'm not a property lawyer. Again it depends on the patients views, it's either effective assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter........ which of the two do you think the NHS should be practising on UK citizens? And more to the point if they are going to practice effective assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter should it be to the same standards as dogs are given in the UK? So like I said you're not arguing with Fop (although you do keep thinking you are ), so you'd better get back to selling houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Fop, I'd tell you to shut the hell up before you embarrass yourself but you're way past that point now and it's never stopped you before. It's obvious you've never worked a single day in healthcare before because you're spouting complete shit. Why are you saying that it doesn't happen in hospitals? (every single day) And that there isn't institutional hypocrisy there? Or that you wouldn't be prosecuted for animal cruelty for practising terminal dehydration on a dog in the UK? The rest is just manc-foplite's clear need for further lessons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Again it depends on the circumstance, some it is, some it isn't (it's manslaughter), both are mentioned above - so you may think you're arguing with Fop, but as usual you're actually arguing with yourself. Logic - and I can see why you stick with property law. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). Your post no.22. You clearly state that it is assisted suicide when it is not. The bit in brackets that follows is then just gobbledygook/your train of thought where you eventually engage brain and it dawns on you that if the principal act is not a suicide then clearly it can't be classed as an 'assisted suicide' either. Oh and I'm not a property lawyer. Again it depends on the patients views, it's either effective assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter........ This is the problem with your argument technique you see, Fop-you've already changed your basic premise. Now it's 'assisted suicide' or 'effective manslaughter'. It's always a movable feast with you because you argue subjectively, without ever interrogating the logic of what you are saying first. It's incredibly childlike (as borne out by your desperation never to be proved 'wrong') and makes constructive debate impossible. At the end of the day though you only jumped on this thread because you had a problem with Luke's being a doctor. (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Again it depends on the circumstance, some it is, some it isn't (it's manslaughter), both are mentioned above - so you may think you're arguing with Fop, but as usual you're actually arguing with yourself. Logic - and I can see why you stick with property law. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). Your post no.22. You clearly state that it is assisted suicide when it is not. The bit in brackets that follows is then just gobbledygook/your train of thought where you eventually engage brain and it dawns on you that if the principal act is not a suicide then clearly it can't be classed as an 'assisted suicide' either. Oh and I'm not a property lawyer. Again it depends on the patients views, it's either effective assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter........ This is the problem with your argument technique you see, Fop-you've already changed your basic premise. Now it's 'assisted suicide' or 'effective manslaughter'. It's always a movable feast with you because you argue subjectively, without ever interrogating the logic of what you are saying first. It's incredibly childlike (as borne out by your desperation never to be proved 'wrong') and makes constructive debate impossible. At the end of the day though you only jumped on this thread because you had a problem with Luke's being a doctor. (again). Again in the quote you posted ( ) I stated it was either effective assisted suicide or effective manslaughter, so again I don't know who you are arguing with (other than yourself). Your desperation is peeking through I think. Now I know you're bored and struggling for work with the downturn, so if you want to participate then please explain which of assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter (or both) you think the NHS should be practising on UK citizens? And if they are going to practice effective assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter shouldn't be to the same standards as dogs are given in the UK? Given that terminal dehydration as a method of euthanasia for a dog would almost certainly see you up in court on charges of animal cruelty. Edited January 2, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 21485 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Come back to work today after 3 weeks off. Only about 12 of us in out of approx 150, its weird! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Again it depends on the circumstance, some it is, some it isn't (it's manslaughter), both are mentioned above - so you may think you're arguing with Fop, but as usual you're actually arguing with yourself. Logic - and I can see why you stick with property law. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). Your post no.22. You clearly state that it is assisted suicide when it is not. The bit in brackets that follows is then just gobbledygook/your train of thought where you eventually engage brain and it dawns on you that if the principal act is not a suicide then clearly it can't be classed as an 'assisted suicide' either. Oh and I'm not a property lawyer. Again it depends on the patients views, it's either effective assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter........ This is the problem with your argument technique you see, Fop-you've already changed your basic premise. Now it's 'assisted suicide' or 'effective manslaughter'. It's always a movable feast with you because you argue subjectively, without ever interrogating the logic of what you are saying first. It's incredibly childlike (as borne out by your desperation never to be proved 'wrong') and makes constructive debate impossible. At the end of the day though you only jumped on this thread because you had a problem with Luke's being a doctor. (again). Again in the quote you posted ( ) I stated it was either effective assisted suicide or effective manslaughter, No you state 'it is' assisted suicide, not either/or. Either/or (in terms of them being mutually exclusive) comes in the later post. You see, you're moving the goalposts slightly as you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 2 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 We've just placed a gentleman who has multi organ failure on the care of the dying pathway. He is not for any unnecessary medicines, tubes, or investigations. He's on a subcutaneous regime of fluids, analgesia, a mild sedative and something to reduce uncomfortable airway secretions. Patients dying everywhere are started on regimes like this. We are not accelerating the process of dying, merely trying to make someone's last few hours or days on this Earth more comfortable. In the overwhelming majority of cases we are succesful in this aim, and the patients die peacefully and their relatives, whilst understandably upset, are satisfied that their loved ones did not suffer unduly. This is not 'assisted suicide', 'euthanasia', 'terminal dehydration' or whatever Fop thinks it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 No I'm just taking issue with you calling it 'assisted suicide' (which you did), when you're conceding that the principal party is not actually committing suicide. Logic. Again it depends on the circumstance, some it is, some it isn't (it's manslaughter), both are mentioned above - so you may think you're arguing with Fop, but as usual you're actually arguing with yourself. Logic - and I can see why you stick with property law. It is (although I can see why people won't want to think of it that way - although I suppose you could make a case for it being manslaughter). Your post no.22. You clearly state that it is assisted suicide when it is not. The bit in brackets that follows is then just gobbledygook/your train of thought where you eventually engage brain and it dawns on you that if the principal act is not a suicide then clearly it can't be classed as an 'assisted suicide' either. Oh and I'm not a property lawyer. Again it depends on the patients views, it's either effective assisted suicide OR effective manslaughter........ This is the problem with your argument technique you see, Fop-you've already changed your basic premise. Now it's 'assisted suicide' or 'effective manslaughter'. It's always a movable feast with you because you argue subjectively, without ever interrogating the logic of what you are saying first. It's incredibly childlike (as borne out by your desperation never to be proved 'wrong') and makes constructive debate impossible. At the end of the day though you only jumped on this thread because you had a problem with Luke's being a doctor. (again). Again in the quote you posted ( ) I stated it was either effective assisted suicide or effective manslaughter, No you state 'it is' assisted suicide, not either/or. Either/or (in terms of them being mutually exclusive) comes in the later post. You see, you're moving the goalposts slightly as you go. Again it depends on the patients will, like I said. But by all means argue with yourself all you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7095 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 arguing with fop is like a broken pencil tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 We've just placed a gentleman who has multi organ failure on the care of the dying pathway. He is not for any unnecessary medicines, tubes, or investigations. He's on a subcutaneous regime of fluids, analgesia, a mild sedative and something to reduce uncomfortable airway secretions. Patients dying everywhere are started on regimes like this. We are not accelerating the process of dying, merely trying to make someone's last few hours or days on this Earth more comfortable. In the overwhelming majority of cases we are succesful in this aim, and the patients die peacefully and their relatives, whilst understandably upset, are satisfied that their loved ones did not suffer unduly. This is not 'assisted suicide', 'euthanasia', 'terminal dehydration' or whatever Fop thinks it is. True, but then multiple organ failure isn't what I was talking about. Terminal dehydration, for example, was. Can you tell me why terminal dehydration of a patient that could be kept alive is "ok" in a human, but would result in a cruelty charge if done to an animal? I'm not arguing against assisted death/suicide/even manslaughter by the way (in all cases, in some it's very needed and the best option, as I have said), just the hypocrisy that leads to unneeded suffering and the ridiculous apologism that seems to go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 arguing with fop is like a broken pencil tbh It's especially like it when they only think they are arguing with Fop, as manc-foplite ends up doing 90% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7095 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now