Contents page 1 — Learning to let go page 2, of Course, is not letting go easily On a page
More can never be a damage – even if it is associated with pain, recurrent pneumonia, and pressure ulcers. This was decided by the Federal court of justice (BGH) today, and, therefore, the claim of a son rejected by the house physician of his deceased dementia patients father wanted to get pain money. The son had complained especially against a gastric probe, which was attached to his father. These have extended the life of the father, and especially his Suffering unnecessarily. The Munich higher regional court had awarded the applicant 40,000 euros for Pain and suffering. This judgment of the BGH has now abandoned.
The case and the judgment are complicated, because different things were up for negotiation. Superficially, it was a question that Doctors need to educate the relatives or sick about it, what are the consequences of an intervention. He relieves suffering and improves the prognosis, or it serves only to prolong life, such as in the present case, with increasing dependency and the break-up of cognitive function associated? The Place of a gastric probe, at a greatly advanced dementia is especially the Latter, Physicians are largely in agreement (Federal chamber of physicians, 2018). The stomach probe, in other words, it’s not medically useful. But the house doctor, and the supervisor of the patient, a Munich lawyer, of course. And so neither the supervisor nor the son, lived at the time of the decision in the United States would have had the Knowledge to make the tube feeding.
A child can never “may harm”
Even if that were true, the presiding judge of the Supreme court is clear that it is far more Fundamental, the judgment as to the medical duty to inform. “Human life is the highest-ranking legal interest, and absolutely worthy of preservation. The judgment about its value to any third party,” she said. Of course it is okay to want to if a man consider his own life for the unworthy, and, therefore, decide to die. Very different but it is behaving with the state and the judiciary. You can never judgment, the life of a patient’s life or even damage. Therefore, also for Pain and suffering was not appropriate. Sorry, full of more life and not let themselves be against the death outweigh.
The judgment is, in regard to this point, very clear. And it reaffirms previous decisions, such as, for example, a Supreme court ruling from 1983. At the time, a mother got during pregnancy, rubella, and later, probably, therefore, a child with a disability to the world brought your wife a doctor being sued had. This should pay Compensation for the resulting disability, because he had not informed the expectant mother that the rubella infection might be causing an obstruction. She had, she would have known about it, a termination of pregnancy. Even then, the Supreme court had not ruled, it would be the legislator, to explain the child to the “damage”.
This type of jurisprudence is marked by a caution, from a historical perspective, completely understandable – and correct–. The national socialists had referred to the lives of people with intellectual disabilities and the sick patients EN masse as “unworthy of life” and you with medication or gas chambers killed. With the help of Doctors and euphemistically “euthanasia” (Greek for “good death”) – were murdered, hundreds of thousands of. The term “life worth living” is poisoned since then, and the debate around euthanasia (in English, by the way: “Euthanasia”) is being conducted differently than for example in Switzerland or the Netherlands. There is a greater awareness of how strong judgments about the value of a life of political considerations, and societal currents can depend on and that is a great danger. That discussions be performed in such a way, is good. Just the same, that the Supreme court recalled.
“. at the end of life Central medical ethical challenge”
And yet the judgment of the Supreme court, is also critical to consider. The medicine has made amazing progress and can be used with apparatuses, and the life, interventions often continue for years. Therefore, the active decision-making prior to the death of an estimated half of the Europeans to end the therapy, or to limit (on the ICU, even at 90 percent, see, for example: ethics in medicine: Winkler et al., 2012). In this supply of Hard – and terminally Ill, people with dementia and cancer, is now something wrong. Of ventilations via chemo therapies, radiation treatment, and artificial nutrition to water supply: far too often is done at the end of life too much. “The so-called. at the end of life, the, de facto, with a view to the patients’ welfare is usually rather a therapy, [is] to write in the next few years, one of the Central medical ethical challenges,” medical ethicist Ralf Jox from the LMU München (ethics in medicine: 2017). The compel has missed the Supreme court – although one may well argue that in the case übertherapiert. What you miss in the judgment, is a clear Signal to Doctors and family members: to let go, if a patient no longer wants to live!
The Numbers are clear: Germany stands out in international comparison due to particularly a lot of over-supply, so medical is not out of showed, possibly even harmful therapies (Lancet: Brownley et al., 2017). And worldwide studies show that. is at the end of life alarmingly common (International Journal for Quality in Healthcare: Cardona-Morell et al., 2016, or the Annals of Internal Medicine: Lynn et al., 1997). The well-known palliative care physician, Gian Domenico Borasio defendant last year in TIME ONLINE a. Cancer at the end of life. It’s expensive chemotherapy administered, the let people die “worse and sooner” (New England Journal of Medicine: Temel et al would sometimes., 2010). And in an Interview study among Swiss Physicians, the vast majority of reported to have ever experienced that a Patient has been further treated, although “a Therapy is not useful” would have been (palliative medicine: Schleger et al., 2008).
