Becoming deathly ill in France.

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
I find the French particularly worrisome. As recently as 1977, the guillotine was used as the standard means of execution.
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Visit France in good health.

Report recommends France legalize 'accelerated deaths' - FRANCE 24

Our European friends give a lot of thought to these matters.



This gives no reason to be concerned about visiting France. This policy only applies to extreme terminal cases.
An advance directive is required or next of kin permission if you are not able to communicate.

This part ( from article ) needs to be adopted in the U.S.:

. . . Authorise doctors to administer painkilling drugs at levels they know will, as a secondary effect, shorten a patient's life.

My Father suffered way to long from lung cancer and Alzheimer's. France's policy would have put him on a pain free dream flight to the beyond. :cool:
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
I find the French particularly worrisome. As recently as 1977, the guillotine was used as the standard means of execution.

Can you elaborate on why you find that worrisome?

There are many who advocate that it can be more humane and cost effective than lethal injection and/or electrocution.

Swift, painless, effective and cost efficient, with the added benefit to society of, perhaps, salvaging organs -- the guillotine is the most humane method of execution ever devised. The guillotine should be put into service, at least until the death penalty has been abolished worldwide.
A METHOD OF EXECUTION THAT IS SWIFT, AS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE, EFFECTIVE AND COST EFFICIENT
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
As long as the decision is ultimately made by the patient, or, in certain circumstances, by the family, I would have absolutely no problem with that.

Here I thought this was about France killing patients to lower costs.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Does anyone think there might be an unspoken agenda at work, rationing of public health dollars( francs) to best fit the needs of French society? Once "accelerated death" statutes are on the books, how many Frenchmen get a few extra days, weeks, months or years shaved off at the end? One might imagine many of these accelerated deaths aren't even recorded as such.
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Does anyone think there might be an unspoken agenda at work, rationing of public health dollars( francs) to best fit the needs of French society? Once "accelerated death" statutes are on the books, how many Frenchmen get a few extra days, weeks, months or years shaved off at the end? One might imagine many of these accelerated deaths aren't even recorded as such.


I do not believe that it is an "agenda" in any sinister way and does not need to be unspoken.
The policy will obviously dramatically reduce the expenses related to the care of terminally ill patients.
The reductions in spending will contribute (in part) to balancing the budget; however, it is a far reach to assume that it is an evil plan to kill off Frenchmen early.
Rather than referring to it as a "rationing of francs" it is more a rationing of specific healthcare services that is being done with directives (permission) from the patients.

These methods are currently practiced in the U.S. albeit quietly and humanely under pain management protocols.
It is not recorded as "accelerated death" but it is noted in the patients medical chart that the pain medication was increased beyond the normal dose as necessary to alleviate discomfort during their final days.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
It's a little uncomfortable to envision accountants and funeral directors attempting to influence families and medical ethicists as to why sooner is better.

Yet, I read somewhere that many American families burn through hundreds of thousands of dollars at granpa's end-of-life struggle to buy a little more time. Each family will choose for themselves.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
It's a little uncomfortable to envision accountants and funeral directors attempting to influence families and medical ethicists as to why sooner is better.

It's a lot amusing to envision it, though, if you've ever been privy to the families' behavior when the loved one is dying. Most are far too grief stricken [and potentially guilt ridden] to accept that the time to let go has come. Grandpa, who is terminally ill, comatose, breathing via ventilator, fed via tube, [and has filed a Do Not Resuscitate order with the hospital], will be 'brought back' after a cardiac arrest, if the family [or just one especially aggressive member] screams bloody murder & threatens lawsuits when the moment comes.
We just don't want to let go - and we can't admit that it's 'time', because the guilt would be unbearable. Or maybe just the feeling that others think we're guilty of callous disregard - same end result.
I've seen it firsthand, too many times: alarms go off, family member is hysterically screaming at the doctors & nurses to "Do something!" and here comes the crash cart to save the patient - for a few more days, at least. I've seen it happen three times with one patient - just crazy, but his daughter refused to accept the inevitable.

Yet, I read somewhere that many American families burn through hundreds of thousands of dollars at granpa's end-of-life struggle to buy a little more time. Each family will choose for themselves.

But given that technology can prolong life far beyond any reasonable hope of recovery, and the cost of that technology can hit hundreds of thousands of dollars in a few days - who's footing the bill?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It will expand. Government is evil. It will expand to the severely retarded, the very old etc. Only a fool would trust a government, ANY government, with their life.
 
Top