Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Hellbent

Woman takes her own life--asks not to be revived

Should the doctors have saved her?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the doctors have saved her?

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      24
    • Not sure!
      4


Recommended Posts

http://news.aol.com/article/coroner-says-doctors-had-to-let-kerrie/697884?icid=main|aim|dl1|link3|[url]http://news.aol.com/article/coroner-says-doctors-had-to-let-kerrie/697884

(Oct. 1) -- Doctors who let a 26-year-old woman die after she swallowed antifreeze acted within the law, a coroner has ruled.
Kerrie Wooltorton, of Norwich in eastern England, is believed to be the first person to use a living will to commit suicide, The Guardian newspaper reported Thursday.
She wrote the document on Sept. 15, 2007, three days before she poisoned herself. She called an ambulance, which took her to Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. There, she gave doctors a letter addressed to "To whom this may concern."

"If I come into hospital regarding an overdose or any attempt of my life, I would like for NO life saving treatment to be given," she wrote in the letter, which Sky News printed on its Web site.

"I am aware that you may think that because I called the ambulance I therefore want treatment, THIS IS NOT THE CASE! I do however want to be comfortable as nobody wants to die alone and scared and without going into details there are loads of reasons I do not want to die at home which I realize you will not understand and I apologise for this," she wrote. Wooltorton had been depressed over her inability to have a child, an inquest into her death heard. Doctors said they feared they would be charged with assault if they treated her because she had made her wishes clear, The Telegraph reported.


"It is a double-bind for doctors. She was very clear in her wishes. To have forced treatment on her would have been unlawful," hospital spokesman Andrew Stronach said, according to the Norwich Evening News.

Her family has said doctors should have tried to save her, despite her written instructions. But the doctors said Wooltorton was considered mentally competent to decide on treatment -- or refuse it.

"Please be assured that I am 100% aware of the consequences of this and the probable outcome of drinking antifreeze, eg death in 95-99% of cases and if I survive then kidney failure, I understand and accept them and will take 100% responsibility for this," she wrote.

Greater Norfolk Coroner William Armstrong said Monday that the hospital could not be blamed for Wooltorton's death. "She had capacity to consent to treatment which, it is more likely than not, would have prevented her death," he said. "She refused such treatment in full knowledge of the consequences and died as a result."

Living wills are commonly associated with people who are terminally ill and wish to refuse treatment, or people who would not want to be kept alive if they were mentally incapacitated in some sort of accident. In England, living wills were introduced under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act.

The ProLife Alliance called for a change in the law.
"A lot of people who attempt to commit suicide are thankful they have been revived the next day," said the group's chairwoman, Dominica Roberts.

Share this post


Link to post

It was very selfish for that woman to ask to die in the company and burden of strangers, not to mention strangers who took an oath to save lives.

Share this post


Link to post

This is utter madness.

I can understand if she was terminally ill and had deliberated upon the matter for a long time, but the inability to bare children is not an excuse. The idea that she was mentally competent is alarming, since she clearly needed some form of counselling - anyone who wants to die simply because they can't have what they want cannot be seen as sound of mind.

I believe it should be the individuals right to choose when they die, but this case isn't one of them.

Share this post


Link to post

For many people, the ability (or inability) to have children is an issue so important that it is literally life or death. And I know because I'm this way. For many years, I was incapable of getting anyone pregnant (due to an accident when I was a teenager), and I wanted children more than anyone. Now that I have children...if my children died, I would want the same. From a biological point of view, we exist simply to reproduce; that is our only purpose in life. When one cannot fulfill the most basic of human requirements, life has no meaning. So really, what she did was not all that unusual, and was totally understandable on a biological level. However, that ProLife Alliance should stay the fuck out of other people's business and stop trying to push their agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Eponasoft said:

From a biological point of view, we exist simply to reproduce


Only partially true, we exist to affect the environment around us. This can be done without reproduction. I'd say the point of life is to consume, reproduce, and be consumed. Even if you don't reproduce, you still had some affect on the ecosystem, all though it isn't as apparent as having children would be.

Eponasoft said:

However, that ProLife Alliance should stay the fuck out of other people's business and stop trying to push their agenda


I'm also getting tired of these "life is precious" christfags, because from a realistic perspective it isn't. Billions of organisms die every die, but you don't see them crying about that. Death is just as natural and necessary as birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Scet said:

christfags...Death is just as natural and necessary as birth.


I don't believe you, show me

Share this post


Link to post
Ralphis said:

I don't believe you, show me


I don't believe you're serious.

How about you show me what makes life "sacred".

Share this post


Link to post
Eponasoft said:

For many people, the ability (or inability) to have children is an issue so important that it is literally life or death. And I know because I'm this way. For many years, I was incapable of getting anyone pregnant (due to an accident when I was a teenager), and I wanted children more than anyone. Now that I have children...if my children died, I would want the same. From a biological point of view, we exist simply to reproduce; that is our only purpose in life. When one cannot fulfill the most basic of human requirements, life has no meaning. So really, what she did was not all that unusual, and was totally understandable on a biological level. However, that ProLife Alliance should stay the fuck out of other people's business and stop trying to push their agenda.


As a parent myself I understand that if my children died I would be distraught - that is natural. However if, before my children were born, I realised I couldn't have them I wouldn't kill myself over it. After your accident when you thought you couldn't get someone pregnant, were you suicidal over it? It's probably different for men however, and I may be another opinionated incompetent judge in all of this.

Ultimately life goes on, and this woman was only 27 years old. She should have had counselling. Biologically speaking it is unnatural to kill yourself over such an issue, since human beings are adaptable by nature and do not kill themselves when they approach hurdles in their life. If that were true then suicide rates would sky-rocket, since existence is ultimately one of suffering compared with the small sparks of happiness that occasionally jump up. I agree that the ultimate goal of life is to procreate and continue existence (they very survival of the species is at stake, according to Schopenhauerean thought). However I do not believe that is the reason for existence in itself. Life for beings with self awareness extends far beyond the limits of mere reproduction.

Share this post


Link to post

This case isn't too different from when someone refuses treatment for cancer or some other lethal affliction. It's only a bit trickier because of the immediate self-cause.

Incidentally, my sister-in-law's brother has a malignant tumor, and the other day he refused to be operated. The doctor agreed not to operate, as in the quoted article above.

Scet said:
I'm also getting tired of these "life is precious" christfags, because from a realistic perspective it isn't.

You're just justifying your own execution with that. The point of the right to life is a sort of projection. It's there for the same reason murder is a sin or illegal. We don't want to die, so we try to respect each others' lives. Death is pretty easy to inflict, and irreversible, so we have to be careful about what we allow.

The reason why there may be exceptions, such as in this case or with abortion, is mainly because the death is self-inflicted, not because we computed a statistic and, after finding many people or living beings die daily, we callously concluded human life isn't worth much. If one has a right to life, no other could have a right to one's own death but oneself.

The "pro-life" people have their share of dumb arguments and positions, but those "Darwinist" "it happens in nature, so it's right" arguments are just as lame, if not worse, or are at least food for their fire. It's a strain of the "I saw it on TV" syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post

I find this perfectly acceptable. If you want to die, then by all means die. My only qualm is that you should really, really, really think about it and consider if why you kill yourself is really worth it. If you want to die becaues of say, a bad breakup, you should really think it out because it isnt worth it. If its because you have cancer and have nothing to live for anyways, take the time to make amends with everyone then do as this lady did.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

It's there for the same reason murder is a sin or illegal. We don't want to die, so we try to respect each others' lives.


I never said people should just go around killing each other. Simply that there's more to life than reproduction and that death is a part of life. I guess since I think people have the right to suicide, I must be some evil "darwinist".

Share this post


Link to post

The doctors did the right thing. There is nothing wrong with the laws as they stand. If the laws were changed to force doctors to rescue these types of patients, then it would simply force these people to commit suicide in private, which I'm sure they would. I can't see how anyone would benefit from that.

I also live in a part of the world where this type of suicide is legal. Also, the idea that "if you want to end your life then you can't possibly be of sound mind" is ridiculous. People who say this are almost invariably committed to the religious idea of "sanctity of life".

Share this post


Link to post

Doctors did the right thing, although I'm mildly irked at the use of resources better dedicated to tend those with intentions to live. Then again, she's got a valid point: there needs to be a reasonably decent way to take your life that is constructed as a true and solid State organism or at least with consent from it..I'm not going to say "with honor", as dying is often a matter of pain, tears, crapping your pants and farting venomous fumes while sporting a clowny rictus and an inappropriate attire. But surely there has to be something better than swelling up in the dark corner of a desert house.

Regardless of motive or principles, there should be a right to die in decency. Considering how we do have such a thing as the right to live a decent life (either as a semantic atomic statement or the compound effect of all rights), which is by itself the hardest thing for a State to provide, I don't see why this should be a big deal. "Reasons" are not to be regarded in the creation of rights. The moment you add a component of "validation" to a particular individual's access to any given right, you invalidate the concept itself. Rights are not earned, given away, taken from you or modified according to your actions, repulsive as they may be.

Share this post


Link to post

Scet said:
I never said people should just go around killing each other.

And why not? Unless life is precious, after all...

Simply that there's more to life than reproduction and that death is a part of life.

Yeah, but the dilemma lies in decisions about life and death, made by people.

In a case like the one presented in the article it's very hard to know what the consequences of one choice or the other are. It puts the responsibility of the doctors in the balance, both in that they try to save lives and in respect to professional accountability. It also puts us in the face of the fickleness of life. One day someone wants to kill herself, the next perhaps she'd be happy to be alive. People make mistakes they regret all the time.

I guess since I think people have the right to suicide, I must be some evil "darwinist".

I wasn't disagreeing with that in particular, but with the reasoning. My point was that if one has a right to suicide, it's because one has a right to live, and that right is there because life is priceless. A "right to suicide" is tricky because it could be abused, and it could make it harder to save people where some boldness or intrusiveness by those trying to save them could otherwise perhaps have freed them from a temporary suicidal period.

Share this post


Link to post
Scet said:

I don't believe you're serious.

How about you show me what makes life "sacred".


I never said it was, so why are you quoting the word sacred?

Share this post


Link to post

I like to think of this in terms of ownership. The most important think we own which cannot willingly be taken from us is our life. It is unlawful for anyone to take someone else's property, including life. Now if you want to take your own life, that's fine because its yours to decide on how you treat it. Just remember that once it's gone, you can't have it back :P

Life==property. Do what you want with your own property.

Share this post


Link to post

She wrote 'do not revive' in her will, and that's that. But I do agree that it was selfish to bring the doctors into this, since it's obviously a gaping moral and legal grey area not worth risking someone's hard earned career for.

Share this post


Link to post
Starke Von Oben said:

After your accident when you thought you couldn't get someone pregnant, were you suicidal over it?

Well, it certainly didn't help my already bad situation. I did attempt suicide not long afterward, though it was not the direct cause. Fortunately, I survived, and was able to have children after almost 15 years of recovery and healing.

I don't think that counseling would have helped this woman. She likely had nothing "wrong" with her that was out of the ordinary. But without knowing the whole story, it's hard to know for sure...we can only speculate. Besides, why couldn't she have children? Did she have no ovaries? Was her uterus incapable of supporting a zygote? Or was it that she simply couldn't find anyone to have sex with? I guess only she knew.

Share this post


Link to post

She could have adopted a child if she really wanted one. It's not the same, but there are a lot of needy children out there.

As for the original issue, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I believe a person has the right to their own life, even if that means taking it, but at the same time I know that a lot of those who try and take their life but survive regret it later. It was also selfish, as Technician said, for her to do so in the company of trained professionals whose very job is to prevent her from dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Snarboo said:

She could have adopted a child if she really wanted one. It's not the same, but there are a lot of needy children out there.

So very true. But not a lot of people think about doing that...we're not really mentally designed to take "ownership" of someone else's child. My wife and I are considering becoming foster parents here in PR, as there are a lot of kids that need homes.

Share this post


Link to post

That's why I'm wondering if maybe she did need counseling, as a counselor could have pointed that out to her. Did she not have any friends, family to talk to?

Share this post


Link to post

Suppose a person wants to kill themself. We can't see into the future; maybe this person can be helped - maybe someone can talk them out of suicide and then that person goes on to live a happy, productive life. Obviously it was appropriate to help this person, even if they didn't want it.

Maybe their situation isn't fixable. Maybe suicide really would end their suffering. Is it right to assume that the latter is always true? Why? That's a pretty callous and immature attitude if you ask me. (nobody asked me)

I've never known anyone that seriously contemplated suicide, but I've had friends with self-destructive habits, and I've helped them. They didn't want my help, but they're better off now. Why would anyone find it so wrong to at least try to help someone in trouble, no matter what?

By the way, human life is precious. Goes with that whole 'no two people are the same' thing. Don't go all nihilist on me now.

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone else read the title as "Woman takes her own life, then asks not to be revived"?

Share this post


Link to post
Scet said:

I guess since I think people have the right to suicide, I must be some evil "darwinist".


Why? People have no control over how, when and where they are born, why should they control how, when and where they die? Because they can? tsk tsk.

Share this post


Link to post
Snarboo said:

She could have adopted a child if she really wanted one. It's not the same, but there are a lot of needy children out there.


Unfortunately it's not always that easy to adopt. Especially if she's single. Adoption agencies are often very strict about how and who they adopt to.

Share this post


Link to post
Nomad said:

Unfortunately it's not always that easy to adopt. Especially if she's single. Adoption agencies are often very strict about how and who they adopt to.

That's true. It was just something I was thinking of when the story mentioned she couldn't have children.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure you are allowed to write a will like that in the United States, because it has to be approved by a court to go into effect, and I'm pretty sure anything illegal in your will (such as requiring those to assist in your suicide) would not be approved.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×