Sunday, 9 February 2014

Liverpool Care Pathway - Persons, Personhood And Non-persons

When a person is defined as a non-person or lacking in 'personhood', they are stripped of and denied their humanity.

Outside of judicial murder, police actions and time of war, does the law actually permit “active killing”?


This is Life Legal 

A CLE (Continuing Legal Education) is being held in Jacksonville, Florida on the 20th of this month. The subject of this CLE is: “ACTIVE KILLING: WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS.”

How may the law permit "active killing"?

It does so on technicality and via the constant moving goal post that is defining death.

This is mirrored in life, in its beginnings and at its end, by declaring a person to be a non-person, not yet human - what, then, an alien?

This has precedent. The declaring of non-Aryans to be lesser humans or non-humans permitted a holocaust.

The training provides practical resources on the litigation of these cases. Terri Schindler Schiavo’s brother, Bobby Schindler, will be there to share the trials and tribulations faced by his family as they fought to save Terri’s life.

How may the law permit "active killing"? It has permitted it in tolerating what can only be described as a medical holocaust that has proceeded over the last decade. This has been through the adoption of a protocol of treatment and non-treatment called the Liverpool Care Pathway and its many scions - and its successors.

It has permitted it by declaring the LKP a programme of 'care' for those declared to be 'dying'. This holocaust, as did its predecessor, has as its basis an economic driver in the engine room.

How may the law permit "active killing"...?

DNR also provides a moral dilemma. A passive decision to not intervene to save a life is tantamount, morally, to an active decision to take a life.

DNR, also, is an "active killing" which the law permits.

This is Bulletin, the journal of the American College of Surgeons 

Herein, it is discussed what shall proceed in the operating room should a DNR be in place.

A decision to operate has been taken. The circumstances of the DNR are, very well, not those that the patient had in mind when their 'Last My Wishes' discussion with the doc went ahead.

Now, that's a thought. That's a dilemma...

A "reconsideration discussion" is proposed. But this provides only further moral dilemmas -
The required reconsideration discussion should occur as early as practical after a decision is made to have surgery. This discussion may result in the patient agreeing to suspend the DNR order during surgery and the perioperative period, retaining the original DNR order, or modifying the DNR order. Required reconsideration works best when the patient has decision-making capacity and when time is available for a conversation. However, even in urgent situations or when the patient lacks decision-making capacity, the surgeon can usually discuss the situation with the patient’s designated surrogate. In emergency situations, it may be impossible or impractical for the surgeon to speak with the patient or the patient’s duly authorized representative prior to the patient’s approaching demise, when irreversible damage occurs, or similar circumstances. In such situations, the surgeon must use his or her best judgment as to what the patient would wish.
Does the law permit "active killing"?

Most certainly it does.

No comments:

Post a Comment