Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
See that's where I think there's a slight moral issue though; I'm not saying keep the machines on indefinitely, however if the reason for turning them off is because they're needed elsewhere rather than to reduce suffering EVEN IF there is no chance of recovery, then I think it's a shame that we're in that situation and can't give the family a little more time to come to terms with their loss before forcing the issue. "Lack of resources" doesn't seem a good enough reason to force traumatic action on the family. He isn't suffering so there's no moral reason not to keep the machines on, from that angle.
Again I'm not saying keep the machines on indefinitely, just that (in a perfect world) they could be given more time and counselling to understand what's happened, what brain death means, to come more to terms with the fact that he will never wake up etc. before "brute force" taking control of the situation.
|
They are being given more time though as they are appealing it. There will be counseling and a family liaison officer.
Also, it's not a case of turning them off because they're needed elsewhere and that is certainly not what BOTS is saying, but rather that inevitably his life is extinct and the machine could be used with someone else. If there's a chance of survival them he would be kept on the machine for as long as needed or put into a coma.
There will become a time though where it will need to be switched off. It's not even just about the use of the machine, but the resources, time, cost and bed. We have an amazing NHS, but it is stretched, underfunded and under resourced.
You say rather than to reduce suffering. He isn't suffering.
I think it's a hard one because the grieving process can be extremely long and it's just not viable to keep a machine on for an extended period of time of there's no chance of recovery... Like I say, they're being given time... Will that time ever be enough, no it won't unfortunately