Your opinion?

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by ltachi, Oct 31, 2014.

  1. Warning: long thread (looks like it'll be long)

    Question is at the very end.


    Nancy Fitzmaurice, born blind with hydrocephalus, meningitis and septicaemia, could not walk, talk, eat or drink, the Mirror reported.

    Her health was so poor she required 24-hour care and was fed, watered and medicated by tube at London’s Great Ormand Street Hospital. Her health deteriorated and as she grew she would scream in agony for hours despite being given morphine and ketamine.

    Her mother, Charlotte Fitzmaurice Wise, knew the pain her daughter was suffering was too much for the 12-year-old to bear. She deserved to be at peace and had the right to die, knew her heartbroken mother, who had given up work as a nurse to be with her.

    …“The light from her eyes is now gone and is replaced with fear and a longing to be at peace.

    “Today I am appealing to you for Nancy as I truly believe she has endured enough. For me to say that breaks my heart."


    …Her application was granted immediately, setting a precedent. It is the first time a child breathing on her own, not on life support and not suffering a terminal illness has been allowed to die in the UK.

    The judge praised Wise for her “love and devotion” towards her daughter… which was shown by her fight to kill Nancy. The judge ruled that she had no quality of life anymore, and therefore, she should be killed by refusing to give her any food or water until she died. It took her 14 days to die. Wise claimed that she wanted to end her daughter’s suffering and give her death with dignity, but she chose to do that by making her daughter suffer a slow, agonizing, painful death. How does that make any sense?

    Dehydration is horrible for a person to endure.

    The body is about 60 percent water, and under normal conditions, he said, an average person will lose about a quart of water each day by sweating and breathing and another one to three quarts by urinating, he said. In the heat and under more difficult physical conditions, that amount increases, he said.

    If it’s not replaced over time and dehydration becomes severe, cells throughout the body will begin to shrink as water moves out of them and into the blood stream, part of the body’s efforts to keep the organs perfused in fluid.

    “All the cells will shrink,” Berns said, “but the ones that count are the brain cells. They don’t operate normally when they’re shrinking.” Changes in mental status will follow, including confusion and ultimately coma, he said. As the brain becomes smaller, it takes up less room in the skull and blood vessels connecting it to the inside of the cranium can pull away and rupture.

    … Victims’ kidneys may shut down first, Berns said, as they continue to lack access to both water and salt. The kidneys cleanse the blood of waste products which, under normal conditions, are excreted in urine. Without water, blood volume will decline and all the organs will start to fail, he said. Kidney failure will soon lead to disastrous consequences and ultimately death as blood volume continues to fall and waste products that should be eliminated from the body remain.

    Dying of starvation is also agonizingly painful.

    Various effects from lack of hydration and nutrition, lead ultimately to death — mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material . . . lips would become parched and cracked . . . tongue would swell and might crack . . . eyes would recede back into their orbits and cheeks would become hollow . . . lining of the nose might crack and cause the nose to bleed . . . skin would hang loose on his body and become dry and scaly . . . urine would become highly concentrated; leading to burning of the bladder . . . lining of his stomach would dry out, causing convulsions . . . respiratory tract would dry out into thick secretions that would result in plugging his lungs . . . at some point within 5 days 103 weeks his major organs, including lungs, heart, and brain would give out and he would die . . . extremely painful and uncomfortable . . . cruel and violent.



    So to end a person’s supposed suffering — a person who is not terminally ill, is not on any life support, and can breathe on their own — we must make them suffer a slow, painful, horrific death. But only if they’re disabled, apparently.

    We don’t treat dogs this way. We don’t execute murderers in such a cruel manner. If a serial killer on death row was executed by forcing them to undergo starvation and dehydration, there would be widespread outrage. But because this girl, a child, is severely disabled, it’s considered acceptable. Putting a bullet in her head would have been kinder, because it at least would have been immediate. But then we can’t tap dance around the fact that what this mother did is murder.

    Wise assumes, as many people do, that a person wouldn’t want to live in such a way. But no one knows how her daughter felt about her quality of life and whether or not she wanted to live. No one knows how her daughter felt in those 14 days that she was being starved and dehydrated. And no one cares. Nancy Fitzmaurice was disabled and could not speak, so she was brutally, cruelly murdered, with the permission of her government. And notice that the suffering Wise spoke of repeatedly was her own, not her daughter’s. She couldn’t bear seeing her daughter like that. She was going through “torture” watching her daughter in pain. So she petitioned the court to get permission to force her daughter to die a slow, painful death instead of seeing palliative care.

    It’s become appropriate in the United Kingdom to kill a person now because it’s too much of a hassle to keep them alive. It’s legal for parents to murder their children because they’re disabled, because they can’t speak for themselves, because the parent has decided that their lives are not worth living anymore. And we call it death with dignity.



    So what do you think about this? Was what the mother did, the right thing to do? Give your reasoning!
     
  2. Tl; dr... sorry OP
     
  3. I agree with putting her out of her misery, view it how you may but at her state she is a waste of resources someone with a chance at survival from an severe accident could use the resource it would take to have her hooked up pretty much her entire life. The method of death is extremely fucked up though, that should not have been allowed, the judge should be removed and disbarred for allowing such a cruel act.
     
  4. The way she went about it was wrong.

    I think it should have been her daughters decision if she wanted to die or not.

    She should have gotten her daughters permission and killed her in a manner that wasn't so awful. Maybe by lethal injection?
     
  5. She couldn't have gotten her daughters permission, if the daughter could be decided there'd have been no controversy.

    I'm slightly curious about the last big paragraph, was that your opinion Jopo?
     
  6. Everything except the first part (warning) and the very end (question) was from the article.

    But... Idk. I dont like how they went about it and I dont like the fact that they decided for her. Idk.
     


  7. No controversy?

    Let me just kill my daughter without her permission so I can create controversy 



    Fuck the controversy. I'd like to have a opinion on if I should die if my mom is possibly going to kill me.
     
  8. Uhmm i didnt read one single word from this lmao its to damn long lololol
     
  9. It's easy for people to judge/have an opinion from the outside looking in.
    But unless you are that person in that position you can't really say she did This wrong or should of done that.


    I have kids and I wouldn't want to see them in any kind of pain. I wanted to slap the nurse just for given them an injection. I couldn't imagine seeing my children in agony every hour of every day.
     
  10. But would you let them starve and dehydrate?

    I know I sure as hell wouldn't let anyone, let alone a child, die of dehydration.
     
  11. I in no way SHAPE OR FORM UNDETSTAND HOW THE MOMMY FELT!

    BUT DAMN WAS THIS BITCH HIGH OR WHAT?

    THE DAUGHTER FOUGHT A LONG, HARD FUCK ING BATTLE, THATS MORE THAN ENOUGH AND SHE LETS HER STARVE AND CRAP FOR LIKE 14 DAYS WTH?

    WHAT PARENT WOULD DO THAT TO THEIR CHILD?

    DEATH WITH DIGNITY?

    WE AINT IN ROMAN OR SPARTAN TIMES BITCH!

    FUCK THIS, FUCK HER.

    SHE PROBABLY LOST SIGHT OF WHAT MATTER ALONG THE WAY

    NOOB

    SHIT, IM IGNORANT I DONT UNDERSTAND.

    FUCK IT.
     
  12. YOLO FUCK ERRORS AND SHIT

    DEUCES
     
  13. This is right to life propaganda. She was given pain medication and it ended her suffering much faster than laying in a bed for years upon years being force fed and hydrated. Euthanasia would be more humane, but that's illegal.
     
  14. IMAGINE HOW THE DAUGHTER FELT!

    BETRAYED?

    ABANDONED BY HER MOM?

    HELPLESS?

    Tsk

    Whatevers.
     
  15. Spit just about summed it up

    Bitches these days
    Crazy bitches
     
  16. This aint even a question of whether this is inhumane or not who would do tht to a child. if ur gonna put her out of her misery do it quick and painless not for 14 long days the heck
     
  17. First of all this is a biased article the type of starvation they did has a name I can't find it right now.. Basically she was given drugs so she couldn't feel pain the entire 2 weeks she wasn't being fed. And if her mother would have euthanised (?) her or put a bullet in her head she would be in jail for murder. The mom did what she had to do to keep her daughter from suffering she had no malicious intent behind her actions so no imo she wasn't wrong.
     
  18. Someone cares about my opinion? 
     
  19. theres always two sides to every argument and alot of bias. alot of ppl lie or change the truth which is why i usually dont believe stuff tbh