Life support fight over paralysed Frenchman to end
There is a man in France, a tetraplegic called Vincent Lambert, who is set to die this week. He was involved in a motorcycle accident in 2008, and has had a low-level of intellectual function since (opening eyes, responding to pain, that kind of thing). He breathes on his own, but cannot swallow or eat, so is fed via a tube.
His wife, some of his siblings and his doctors want to 'withdraw treatment' - what does this innocuous sounding phrase mean? It means they want to starve a man to death, as his only external support is via feeding - although he requires nursing care and physiotherapy to prevent bedsores and contractures.
His Parents and some other of his siblings have been fighting a losing battle to make sure they keep feeding him. Euthanasia is illegal in France, and this is solely a backdoor method of doing so. Feeding a person is hardly exhaustive medical intervention, and potentially this man could continue to live till old age or a disease claims him. I can understand not choosing to intervene if his condition worsens, but allowing him to die by starvation is simply too much. It is difficult to ascertain function here, as clearly he is not brain-dead by any measure. Improvement in such states has occured in the past (a woman in the Middle East recently awoke after something like 20 or so years in a coma). There is also disagreement between the two camps on what his actual level of function is.
I am fully opposed to Euthanasia, but respect not increasing treatment further in cases with a low prognosis or withdrawing active intervention like adrenaline infusions or the ilk. Feeding is not an extraordinary method of sustaining Life though, as any trip to the dinner table makes plain. While not familiar with the particulars of the man's condition, this seems merely to be a sneaky attempt to Euthanise him.
There is a man in France, a tetraplegic called Vincent Lambert, who is set to die this week. He was involved in a motorcycle accident in 2008, and has had a low-level of intellectual function since (opening eyes, responding to pain, that kind of thing). He breathes on his own, but cannot swallow or eat, so is fed via a tube.
His wife, some of his siblings and his doctors want to 'withdraw treatment' - what does this innocuous sounding phrase mean? It means they want to starve a man to death, as his only external support is via feeding - although he requires nursing care and physiotherapy to prevent bedsores and contractures.
His Parents and some other of his siblings have been fighting a losing battle to make sure they keep feeding him. Euthanasia is illegal in France, and this is solely a backdoor method of doing so. Feeding a person is hardly exhaustive medical intervention, and potentially this man could continue to live till old age or a disease claims him. I can understand not choosing to intervene if his condition worsens, but allowing him to die by starvation is simply too much. It is difficult to ascertain function here, as clearly he is not brain-dead by any measure. Improvement in such states has occured in the past (a woman in the Middle East recently awoke after something like 20 or so years in a coma). There is also disagreement between the two camps on what his actual level of function is.
I am fully opposed to Euthanasia, but respect not increasing treatment further in cases with a low prognosis or withdrawing active intervention like adrenaline infusions or the ilk. Feeding is not an extraordinary method of sustaining Life though, as any trip to the dinner table makes plain. While not familiar with the particulars of the man's condition, this seems merely to be a sneaky attempt to Euthanise him.
Last edited: