Skip to comments.Woman Fights to Have Comatose Son Euthanized
Posted on 05/19/2009 5:50:12 PM PDT by markomalleyEdited on 05/20/2009 6:49:08 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
An Australian woman would like doctors to administer a fatal dose of morphine to her comatose son.
Joanne Dunn wants her son to die in her arms. Mark Leigep, 34, has been in a vegetative state for more than three years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
...I’m happy to stay out of this debate.
Interesting that the first two cases compare themselves to Schiavo when in fact they weren’t anything like her.
There was plenty of evidence of Terri’s awareness of her surroundings, ability to eat, and limited ability to communicate.
Everything else is sophistry.
A sad story and a tough position to put your family. A living will is a good thing to have. Prayers for the woman and her son.
Should have aborted him...she wouldn’t have been saddled with a baby...I wanna puke...
Prayers for Mark Leigep.
Prayers that his mother finds her soul.
They will be here soon enough!
Yow. So they’ve almost decided to starve him on three occasions?
If there is no, or little chance of him recovering, I believe she should be granted her wish. It’s a shame the guy didn’t have a living will. I don’t know anyone who would want to lay in a coma for the rest of their lives, myself included.
I’m curious as to why she wants a lethal dosage of Morphine. One would think a combination of Benzos and the more potent synthetic opioids would be more efficient. Perhaps she hasn’t consulted a professional for such matters.
Of course, she doesn’t want to kill him herself (she can’t get her hands on a pillow?) She wants someone else ordered to kill him for her.
Case: Mark Leigep v. The Commonwealth of Australia
Verdict: Guilty of been in a coma from injury
Punishment: Death by starvation
Plea Deal: Denied
Cruel and sickening!!!!!!!!!!
I’m about to hurl. I clicked on a link in the Fox News story, and there’s a longer version at http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25498193-5006301,00.html .
They have a poll where you can vote on whether or not the victim should be allowed to live. Naturally they use deceptive wording to suggest that the victim is the one requesting his own murder.
Mommy Dearest said it seemed wrong that he was both a “strain on the health system” and still collecting the dole. (Her wording, not mine).
The culture of death honestly believes that if they can win an American Idol-type poll that they will have the ability to kill whoever they want.
The reality is that very often, it is the pain meds or other palliative meds that hasten death and it is NOT euthanasia.
there is only debate because of the advances of science...70 years ago, there would be no debate, the person would die of “natural” causes...now we keep people alive with all sorts of interventions, so where are we really? Debating.
Good idea, a living will.
This man is on a FEEDING TUBE and feeding tubes have been used to some degree of success for several hundred years. The effectiveness of them has been greatly enhanced in recent decades because of advances in hypoallergenic plastics and antibiotics.
What you dismiss as "interventions" are, in reality, nothing more than advances in technology. We EMBRACE technological advances in ALL other areas of life, why not medicine? Would you buy a car without air conditioning? What about a house without indoor plumbing or electricity? Do you use aspirin, acetaminophen or ibuprofen? Do you take vitamins?
Sixty years ago a burst appendix was often deadly, today it's no big deal. Fifty years ago a clogged artery near the heart was pretty much a death sentence, today they are routinely corrected.
We are continually improving our lives through technology. Why do you embrace some and not others?
I wonder if they have tried giving this guy a sleeping pill. He might wake up.
Update. Mark Leigep’s guardian brother, Brian, has given in to Mommy Dearest. Mark no longer has anyone advocating for him.
I do embrace technology and medical advances...i point out that many of the ‘life and death ‘decisions we “debate” today as they are now presented to us, were not available 70 years ago.
A burst appendix by the way is still a big deal...however, years ago the person would have died and there would be no discussion. Now, we have moved so far ahead, that these decisions are not so ‘clear cut”...that is, the whole picture of death and dying HAS changed.
And we are faced with grappling with our moral issues again with new realities that humans did not have to face 70 years ago.Ergo, a “debate”, ie discussion which is the talking out again of our moral decisions.
There is NO DEBATE, society has ALWAYS taken advantage of technological advances.
the “debate” is not about technology, you miss what I was saying.
The “debate” is about how we define death and dying because we have “interferred “ with the process, and so, while the medical advances are good, we now have to discuss, or debate “What is dying?”, “How long do we keep someone alive?” ...or “When do we pull the plug?”.
However, in THIS CASE we are talking about food and water, there is no "plug" to pull.
Nutrition and hydration ARE NOT "extraordinary" means like a ventilator.
Many children are on feeding tubes, and some of them wrote Terri a note or a greeting card.