Should doctors have the right to end life support?

What are yours?

I haven't made my decision but I am more inclined to go for yes. I can imagine it would be a difficult decision for the doctors but when there is other patients lives at risk that could potentially be saved and resources being used up then a decision must be made. Obviously I think that they should discuss it with the patient/patients family first but if they won't agree to ending it when there is almost no chance of recovery then I think the doctor must make the decision on their behalf.

errr i don't think doctors can really do that....

I always thought it is down to the family to decide. If they don't agree than the doctors cannot simply turn off life support. Dunno, maybe I'm wrong or it's different in the UK than in other countries.

Family's decision and nobody elses

what, just because they feel like it?
no - it's up to the family, or the wishes of the person themselves if they ever accounted for such a situation

Even if it means another patient can be saved? For instance someone is on life support and don't have much chance of recovery but the family refuse to end it due to their emotional attachment even if it means it could potentially save another life.

I meant using data from machines and other data. Can I ask why you think this? I'm doing a project on it and just want to know peoples opinions

Doctors should not be able to choose who lives and who dies.

because I think people ought to be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies when they're not infringing the personal liberties of others - so in this case, when we can't ask the person involved what they'd like to do with their body, it would be the family would would best be able to interpret the wishes of that person. also, like I said, I am also accounting for the situation of a person stating what they would like to have happen to them if they were on life support in a coma or similar - if they expressly said "yes, turn my life support off in that case" then that's their body and therefore their rules

I always thought it is down to the family to decide. If they don't agree than the doctors cannot simply turn off life support. Dunno, maybe I'm wrong or it's different in the UK than in other countries.

So even if it meant saving another persons life the families decision should overrule this factor?

I thought we were talking more about never-ending comas and things like that where people have to be on life support?
if they're supposedly never going to wake up, then surely that's families' responsibility
if they're going to wake up soon, then why are we even considering ending life support?
if it's uncertain, then, again, the assumption would be to continue life support, and to end it would basically be manslaughter via neglience, right?

Legally, the family of an adult patient have no right to make decisions on consenting or withdrawing treatment (unless there is a pre-existing Lasting Power of Attorney). Usually doctors will take the views of the family into account, but the family cannot insist on treatment being continued if it is clinically futile.

It's not, or shouldn't be, about resource allocation; it's a question of not prolonging life where there's no hope of meaningful recovery.

I'm saying if there is no hope for one patient, and by ending their life support another patient who has hope of recovery could use it, then is it fine just to let the patient who has hope die because the patient who has no hope's family doesn't want to?