Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: They could have just given them a Pepsi!
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
Slow starvation is now acceptable medical treatment according to purported “bioethicists”.
“Last year, I wrote here warning about a bioethics paper that advocated restricting the amount of orally received food and water given to dementia patients, an intentional undernourishment approach that the authors labeled “minimal comfort feeding.”
“Well, the idea of death by intentional undernourishment has now hit the big time in the popular media with a long New York Times piece telling the story of a dementia patient who died under that regimen. I expect it to spark a national conversation. (I make a brief appearance in the piece. The reporter, Kate Raphael, could not have been more cordial and presented my views accurately. Also, she offers plenty of objections from medical professionals, so this response should not be deemed a criticism of her work.)
“The title of the piece asks: ‘She Didn’t Want to Live with Advanced Dementia. So Why Was She Being Kept Alive?’
“…
“The issue is not about patients who refuse hydration and calories or who have no interest in food, but of not providing as much sustenance as they may want: intentionally undernourishment. Indeed, the original bioethics paper offers this definition:
“‘Minimal Comfort Feeding: Only as much food and liquid as necessary to avoid discomfort . . .”
“‘MCF is the provision of only enough oral nutrition and hydration to ensure comfort (Table 1). With MCF, eating and drinking is not scheduled; rather, caretakers offer food and liquids only in response to signs of hunger and thirst. Patients are neither wakened for regular mealtimes nor encouraged to eat or drink. Instead, they are offered frequent, fastidious mouth care, continued social contact, therapeutic touch, sensory distraction, and medications to relieve distress associated with apparent thirst or hunger before being provided with minimal amounts of liquid or food.’”
New Jersey loves them some “bioethicist” approved slow-motion killin’.
“Serious moves are afoot to allow ending the lives of dementia patients, either by allowing them to be killed by lethal jab euthanasia if requested in a written advance directive (where legal), or to allow a document to be signed requiring caregivers to withhold sufficient food and water to sustain life.
“New Jersey seems to move subtly in the latter direction with a vaguely worded bill, S.B. 4186, that could open the door to intentional legal undernourishment. From the bill:
“‘It is the public policy of this State to respect the dignity, autonomy, and previously expressed wishes of individuals living with dementia by authorizing Dementia-Specific Advance Directives (DSADs), establishing clear standards for “comfort feeding only,” and ensuring that such directives are honored across all care settings.’
“Please note that this proposal isn’t about withholding or withdrawing bona fide medical treatments, such as kidney dialysis or chemotherapy, but concerns spoon-feeding.”
Plenty of Dutch doctors are happy to be killers.
“As the West lunges toward propagating a right to be made dead, the deleterious societal impacts of being legally ‘MAIDed’ (killed by “medical assistance in dying”) are becoming increasingly clear. A recent professional analysis published in the Psychiatric Times illustrates the lethal influence on mentally ill suicidal people — including youth — in the Netherlands.
“From “Psychiatric Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Young People, Procedural Medicine, and the Limits of Psychiatry” (citations omitted):
“‘Requests for euthanasia on psychiatric grounds have risen sharply, with a disproportionate increase among young adults and, more recently, minors. The Dutch model, once presented internationally as careful and balanced, is now attracting attention for a different reason: growing uncertainty about whether psychiatry has crossed a boundary it cannot coherently justify.’
“This increase has had a deleterious impact on suicidal youth:
“‘The numerical trend among youth underscores why concern has intensified. For many years, psychiatric euthanasia in the Netherlands was virtually nonexistent. Between 2002 and 2010, only 1 or 2 cases per year were reported across all age groups. This changed markedly after 2011. According to data published by the Regional Euthanasia Review Committees, the number of psychiatric euthanasia cases increased from 2 in 2011 to 138 in 2023, followed by a further sharp rise to 219 cases in 2024, representing an increase of roughly 60% in a single year.’
“‘When euthanasia deaths are considered alongside suicides, assisted dying now accounts for a growing proportion of premature deaths among young adults, particularly young women, raising serious concerns about contagion effects, shifting cultural norms, and the population-level consequences of introducing medicalized death into the care landscape for youth with mental suffering.’
“The phenomenon of ‘doctor shopping’ (as I call it) has long been a problem with legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. The problem also exists in the Netherlands.”
TTFN.
