Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Teenage girl wins right to die watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To all those saying that it would be better for the girl to have the treatment rather than die, I want to say that you know nothing of what you're talking about.

    My little brother (at the time, about 14) had to have a similar opperation on his heart, even though it was very risky and would only give him a couple of years more at best. He didn't want the opperation because he was sick of the pain, the opperations (he'd had 10 since he was 7), the medication, the hospitals, everything. My parents and the doctors forced him to have the opperation. He died on the opperating table.

    Every single day, I wish he hadn't had that opperation just so I could spend some more time with him, and tell him I loved him, and to be able to say goodbye properly.

    I think this girl has made a very brave and wise decision, and I think her parents are amazing for allowing her to choose this path. I wish my parents had been that understanding.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It would appear that she has been deemed ''of capacity'' to understand and make a decision regarding her treatment. If one is deemed to have capacity, treatment cannot be forced upon them.

    To those who ask, ''what is wrong with medication?'' - perhaps the side effects were unbearable to live with? Perhaps no amount of medication would allow her to have a reasonable quality of life? Perhaps she could not face endless hours, months, years of what little time she had left being spent in and out of hospitals, in pain, alone, ill. If you have faced a long term or serious illness you might have some idea of what it might be like.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alenax)
    She's 13! And what's wrong with taking medication?? That's ridiculous.
    What if the medication creates side effects that are worse than how much she's suffering now, and she had to live with those side effects for 5 or more years?

    A heart transplant doesn't automatically increase quality of life, no matter how much you want it to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spotty Dog)
    What if the medication creates side effects that are worse than how much she's suffering now, and she had to live with those side effects for 5 or more years?

    A heart transplant doesn't automatically increase quality of life, no matter how much you want it to.
    Actually, to be honest, I re-read the article and some of this thread and I've changed my opinion somewhat. I don't see why such a big thing has been made out of it, I'm sure that thousands of people refuse treatment, ranging from minor things like putting plaster on a cut, to major things like that, every day but because she's 13, it makes a good sob story so the news decided to roll with it.

    It is a bit sad because you feel the inevitability in her words, and because she's been ill all her life, but it's hardly euthanasia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The hospital could have easily forced this throught he court. They do it all the time with Jahova's. From where i'm sitting she seems to be obviously depressed and letting her make such a decision is very unwise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ugh the ignorance in this thread is astounding.

    She has chosen to refuse a heart transplant (this 'wins right to die' rubbish incredibly poorly phrased). It would only provide temporary relief from her illness - she's still going to die. Why should she live an extra few weeks/months when she's going to have to be on constant medication (bearing in mind she'd be on strong steroids which completely knacker the immune system, putting her at huge risk of secondary infections like pneumonia, not to mention recurrence of the leukaemia).

    The heart transplant may extend her life, but will it improve her quality of life? No, probably not. At 13 she's old enough to decide whether she wants to endure her illness for a longer time, possibly at the expense of her wellbeing, or whether enough is enough.

    One thing's for sure, she certainly knows more about suffering and death than most of you, so stop being so ******* condescending.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's her choice, nobody else should be able to force her.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We all might not agree with her decision but bear in mind that she had to take medication from age 5 and now she has a hole in her heart, maybe she lost hope in medication.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    wtf
    dude
    the LAW is as far as I am aware that if you are not 16 (and i think 18 in US), you cannot refuse treatment if advised by a doctor unless parents consent- or doctors don't recommend it in the first place.

    1. doctors would recommend, because their job is to keep ppl alive and if they can they will its their oath
    2. her parents will let her die?! unlikely! but u never know..

    there is good reason for not allowing 13 year olds to make these decisions. i admit that at 13 i probably wouldn't have been mature enough to make these kind of decisions...
    i just don't think this should be allowed to happen.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by quadruple_twist)
    Ugh the ignorance in this thread is astounding.

    She has chosen to refuse a heart transplant (this 'wins right to die' rubbish incredibly poorly phrased). It would only provide temporary relief from her illness - she's still going to die. Why should she live an extra few weeks/months when she's going to have to be on constant medication (bearing in mind she'd be on strong steroids which completely knacker the immune system, putting her at huge risk of secondary infections like pneumonia, not to mention recurrence of the leukaemia).

    The heart transplant may extend her life, but will it improve her quality of life? No, probably not. At 13 she's old enough to decide whether she wants to endure her illness for a longer time, possibly at the expense of her wellbeing, or whether enough is enough.

    One thing's for sure, she certainly knows more about suffering and death than most of you, so stop being so ******* condescending.

    if that is true then... i take back my other comment
    and i'd probably do the same

    i dno where the other quote came from then. some newspaper maybe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by play_fetch)
    wtf
    dude
    the LAW is as far as I am aware that if you are not 16 (and i think 18 in US), you cannot refuse treatment if advised by a doctor unless parents consent- or doctors don't recommend it in the first place.

    1. doctors would recommend, because their job is to keep ppl alive and if they can they will its their oath
    The law in England is that if you're under 16, you are not 'compentent' to make your own medical decisions and so if you refuse/accept a treatment your parents/guardian disagree with it will be taken to court.

    In Scotland doctors assess under 16s to see if they are informed and sufficiently mentally able to make their own decisions. If they are their parents don't get a say in it (although the kid is encouraged to discuss it with the parents)

    As for the oath: it's not to 'keep people alive', it's to do what's best for the patient (excluding actively helping someone to die). Part of the oath is 'to do no harm'. You could argue that by giving the transplant you are doing her more harm than good.

    Either way, it's not something doctors take lightly. It wouldn't ever be a case of "do you want a heart transplant?" "no" "ok then".
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ethereal)
    This is completely wrong. Generally, if the parents refuse on behalf of the child the hospital goes to court and is allowed to carry out the procedure. It is incredibly rare for a court to make a ruling that treatment should not be given to a child where that lack of treatment will lead to death.
    My parents said that if anything happened to my brother when he was in hospital, they didn't want him recessitated. The hospital were fine with this, and even encouraged them to make that decision, as he had such a poor quality of life (serious brain damage). He eventually died, aged 3, at home, but even then, the paramedics/hospital ask again and again whether they wanted him saved or not (if it was possible, which tbh it wasn't).

    Not many doctors are willing to carry out treatment which may mean that the patient has a decreased quality of life afterwards, if the patient says no. They spend a lot of time moniotring the patient as to whether they should go ahead with procedures.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My friend died when she was 14. She had cancer and the hospital said that any treatment would only prolong her life, not cure her. She decided not to have anymore treatment because she wanted to enjoy her last days, not spend them in and out of hospital, away from the people and things she loved. She was soooooooo mature because she had to grow up pretty quickly to deal with the cancer and everything so I can understand why Hannah has made her decision. It's awfully sad, but I can understand her decision. God bless her and her family. They are all very very brave.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    i feel more sorry for the parents. how sad that she wan't to basically kill herself and put other people through so much misery, just because she didn't want to take medicine. sure, it might be a different situation if after the transplant she wasn't getting any better, then she should be allowed to stop...
    I feel sorry for the girl. Heart transplant recipeants have to take masses of drugs. They are much more vunerable to virtually every disease you can think of because of it. The survival rate for females after 5 years is only 66%. The operation is quite intense, and it takes a long time to recouperate. And it is no guarantee that she would even survive the operation.

    So, do you believe that we should force people to have medical care to prolong thier lives, even if they refuse it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    She is 13, is it not law that the parents make the choice until she is over the age of 16?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fisherman)
    I feel sorry for the girl. Heart transplant recipeants have to take masses of drugs. They are much more vunerable to virtually every disease you can think of because of it. The survival rate for females after 5 years is only 66%. The operation is quite intense, and it takes a long time to recouperate. And it is no guarantee that she would even survive the operation.

    So, do you believe that we should force people to have medical care to prolong thier lives, even if they refuse it?
    i don't know. i get what you're saying. and i agree, when you put it that way then she should be allowed to choose. but i still think that at 13 she is too young to make a life-or-death decision.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    i don't know. i get what you're saying. and i agree, when you put it that way then she should be allowed to choose. but i still think that at 13 she is too young to make a life-or-death decision.
    So what age do you think it should be? Should the parents be asked about whether or not she should have the op, and it be the parents decision? Or just the hospital's decision?

    In my experience, having a serious illness forces people to grow up very quickly indeed. I'm quite sure the girl has not just decided in a second, she will have been asked again and again if she's sure she wants the operation, the risks and rewards of it all explained to her.

    But I know what you mean, 13 is young, but I don't think too young to comprehend the seriousness of her decision. Anyone know what the expected lifespan for her is? Because I recall being told that holes in the heart are a birth defect in some cases, and if she's managed 13 years with it, will she live much longer?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think the law is, although I have only gathered this from fiction novels based in America, so please correct me if I am wrong, that the parents have legal right until you are 16, but the child's view must be taken into account at the age of 13?
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    (Original post by brokenangel)
    this is more than a simple heart transplat

    Hannah previously suffered from leukaemia and her heart has been weakened by drugs she was required to take from the age of five.

    has anyone stopped to think that mayhe she is tried of fighting and just wants to enjoy what time she has left without constant medication and intervention.

    She has obviosuly suffered health problems from a very young age and wants that to end and to enjoy herself.

    whats the point of living if you cant enjoy it
    I thought exactly the same thing. I really feel for her, though.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by angelafleming)
    Honestly, I think a 13-year-old is too young to make such a decision.
    why? i read in the metro this morning that a 13 is being sentenced for rape. Rape froma 13 year old boy for crying out loud. Who says a 13 doesnt know what death is. I think adults give children too little credit. I also think that many people on here arent that much further past 13 themselves and currently trying to be "adult" when secretly knowing the age gap isnt that huge. So they attack a 13 year old girl who has grown up far too fast due to lifes cruelties for "not understanding" id place a lot of money on her knowing exactly whats going on

    (Original post by Dionysia)
    Mm. Not something I agree with, especially with the decision made by a 13-year-old. You only get one life; ending it by choice can't be right.

    But then again, I'm not in her position. However, I do (or did) know somebody close to me who refused treatment though and chose to die instead, and it was heartbreaking but made me angry more than anything else. Life isn't to be ended when you feel like it, and a doctor's job should be to preserve life, whatever it takes.
    and who are you to tell me when my life can end. Or your friends you were angry becasue your friend chose to die quicker rather than later. You would have preffered it he/she ahd lived out his/her life dependant on drugs and propbably in a lot of pain.

    (Original post by quadruple_twist)
    Ugh the ignorance in this thread is astounding.

    She has chosen to refuse a heart transplant (this 'wins right to die' rubbish incredibly poorly phrased). It would only provide temporary relief from her illness - she's still going to die. Why should she live an extra few weeks/months when she's going to have to be on constant medication (bearing in mind she'd be on strong steroids which completely knacker the immune system, putting her at huge risk of secondary infections like pneumonia, not to mention recurrence of the leukaemia).

    The heart transplant may extend her life, but will it improve her quality of life? No, probably not. At 13 she's old enough to decide whether she wants to endure her illness for a longer time, possibly at the expense of her wellbeing, or whether enough is enough.

    One thing's for sure, she certainly knows more about suffering and death than most of you, so stop being so ******* condescending.
    this

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The hospital could have easily forced this throught he court. They do it all the time with Jahova's. From where i'm sitting she seems to be obviously depressed and letting her make such a decision is very unwise.
    The difference there is thats religious beliefs not a rational decision from someone who has been through so much. And why is not wise, why is better for her to live in pain and be degraded and humiliated by going through invasive medical applications.

    You know what rellay gets me about all this and similar situations.

    If a dog was in the same condition and was in a lot of pain and had been very ill we would put it down as a greater kindness.

    So why is it more "civilised" to put a dog down becasue its a kinder thing to do than let it live in pain and force a human to live with degrading painful and eventually fatal medical conditions. to me it speaks of utter barbarity that we forcibly inflict such conditions on people so that we can appear to be morally just
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.