Thai doctors lose case against 'right to die' rule

[connda]

Now there is something good that the Yingluck administration did.

I suppose if a doctor in a private hospital stops treating a patient in accordance with a living will and the patient dies then payment to the hospital stops. But that wouldn't come into the decision to petition against the regulation.

Robby, to be honest i think that really does come into the decision here. Hospitals are greedy to the extreme here. Anyway good that Thailand follows the more enlightened countries where one has the right to die. Well done YL for something good for the people.

Of course in some of the supposed "enlightened" countries, absent a living will, they'll happily maintain you in a vegetative state for 15 years and the government will intervene to prevent a spouse from saying it's time to let the patient die.

Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush did all he could to prevent Terri's husband from allowing her to die.

In 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered major brain damage when her heart failed which cut oxygen to her brain. She entered the unfortunate condition of a persistent vegetative state. Her eyes are open and she goes through periods of sleep and wakefulness. But that part of her brain that controls most motor functions has been destroyed. She can breathe on her own, but cannot eat, thus she is kept alive with a feeding tube.

The legal fight over Terri Schiavo began almost immediately in 1990. Court-appointed doctors declared that Terri would never recover from the brain damage, and for the last 13 years, she's needed feeding and hydration tubes to stay alive. That's against her stated wishes, says Terri's husband Michael. He's been battling her parents in court, seeking to allow her to die. For all of the medical knowledge, legal wrangling and family anguish expended in the past 10 years over the fate of Terri Schiavo, the most pivotal question remains unanswered: Would the 39-year-old Florida woman want to go on living in her current vegetative state? That mystery could have been solved with a simple piece of paper - a living will

...and Terri's husband got his way and they withheld water and food, essentially dehydrating her to death. What completely inhuman, evil SOBs made the decision that withholding water was a merciful way to allow an individual to die with dignity. The 'Government' with input from the Churches and overly-moralist hospital executives and administrators. Dehydrating a person to death is unconscionably!

You want to allow an individual to die with dignity? Administer a lethal dose of phenobarbital or morphine. If I was terminally ill and wished to die, that would be that way I'd choose. I'd put that right in my living will: "I wish to be euthanized via phenobarbital or morphine overdose."

"But Buddha/Christ/God/Brahma/etc will throw you in Hell-fire for the rest of eternity, and "Oh", the family may sue!!!"

So our only choice when filling out a 'living will' is to willing submit to 'death by dehydration.' That's just pure, unadulterated evil.

I'm amazed at the world full of righteous hypocrites, both liberal and conservative, who lack as much as a thimble full of compassion for the suffering of humans. You'll euthanize your dog, but not your terminally ill grandmother dying in agony of lung cancer who is begging to be relieved of her suffering. And at the same time you'll crucify Dr. Kevorkian and then lobby your representatives and 'leaders' to hang/shoot/electrocute convicted murderers. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Edited June 19, 2015 by connda

[Srikcir]

I am glad this law was upheld but the court's reasoning is bizarre!

"regulation was in line with Article 38 of the 2007 Constitution, which enshrines people's rights and liberties"

There is no 2007 Constitution. The NCPO abolished it and replaced it with its Interim Charter. While the Charter in Article 4 recognizes "human dignity, rights, liberties and equality of the the Thais," there is nothing specific regarding living will, patient rights, etc. And in fact the NCPO has granted itself judicial power that supercedes the Supreme Court and has invoked Article 44 of the Charter that DENIES Thai people their rights and liberties.

If the Supreme Court believes it can legally uphold the 2007 Constitution for pre-coup laws, it should be called upon to defend the continued legitimacy of the ENTIRE 2007 Constitution. Under Part 13, "Right to Protect the Constitution, Article 68:

"No person shall exercise the rights and liberties prescribed in the Constitution to OVERTHROW the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State under this Constitution or to acquire the POWER TO RULE the country by any means which is not in accordance with the modes provided in this Constitution."

But will the previous junta-appointed supreme court judges be willing to opose the NCPO? Their silence on the abolishment of the 2007 Constitution speaks for itself.

[fvw53]

I quote from The Nation :

.............patients' living wills, in which they can spell out their preferences for medical care at a time when they are unable to make decisions for themselves. In the living will, they can state what kind of treatments they would or would not want to receive when they reach a terminal stage. Doctors are legally required to comply with these wills.

Can samples of such living wills be found on the internet ( applicable under Thai Law)?

[JimGant]

"I wish to be euthanized via phenobarbital or morphine overdose." "But Buddha/Christ/God/Brahma/etc will throw you in Hell-fire for the rest of eternity,

Yes, isn't it wonderful how the world's religions promote suffering -- either by credo or, as in today's Middle East (or southern Thailand), by direct contact with a sharp or exploding instrument.

I'm sure, due to Buddhism, we'll never see active suicide assistance in Thailand. But it's nice to see that passive assistance is (at least legally) now available in Thailand.

And what's even more amazing is, that in the bible thumping USA, three States now allow assisted suicide. The Christian zealots, of course, went berserk when these laws were passed, mumbling something about, 'Jesus suffered for your sins, so prolonging your terminal illness is payback time.' Then they wandered off, further mumbling about not using condoms, thus promoting Aids, unwanted children -- or maybe abortion. What <deleted>' hypocrites.

Yeah, religion is pretty upsetting -- particularly Christianity. Buddhism is, at least, a lot gentler in its overall philosophy. However, having to put my dog down myself, as the vet wouldn't do it, was a little unsettling (he at least provided the needle).

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I understand the medical profession's credos to heal and do no harm.

But, there are some conditions in life that simply cannot be "healed," including old age and the maladies that go with it. And sometimes, doing no harm is better served by allowing a suffering person to choose their own voluntary death, rather than being forced to live on against their wishes in pain and suffering.

I don't need the doctor to activity do it to me, when my time comes. But, I certainly hope, society and compassion has advanced enough by that time that I would at least be able to be given/assisted with the medical instruments/materials/set up to do it myself -- if that was my choice at the time.

I hope to live a long and happy life. But when I feel my time has finally come, I don't want some doctor or hospital forcing me to remain against my wishes. In my book, that's doing a LOT of harm.

[tropo]

Now there is something good that the Yingluck administration did.

I suppose if a doctor in a private hospital stops treating a patient in accordance with a living will and the patient dies then payment to the hospital stops. But that wouldn't come into the decision to petition against the regulation.

Robby, to be honest i think that really does come into the decision here. Hospitals are greedy to the extreme here. Anyway good that Thailand follows the more enlightened countries where one has the right to die. Well done YL for something good for the people.

I agree with that... Hospitals here are a business and not concerned about our well being.

This law doesn't affect the poor, who will happily be left to die even if not terminally ill. Treating terminally ill rich people is a licence to print money in the hospitals here. Nothing would be more profitable - draining their bank accounts for as long as possible, well aware they are eventually going to die.

[Cpkt8]

Every person should have their own right to decide what to do with their own life. Yes doctors should save lives but they should also respect the patients' will.

[cardinalblue]

32,000B a shot? I don't believe..