3 ms·
The rationale is that they may not want to breathe their last breaths through a machine, which is uncomfortable and interferes with communication with their lov
by kerkeslager 7y ago
The rationale is that they may not want to breathe their last breaths through a machine, which is uncomfortable and interferes with communication with their loved ones, when that machine only marginally improves their chances of a positive outcome.
I'm open to the idea that 0-60 year olds should be treated differently from 60+ year olds, but that decision should be based at least in part on a difference in survival rates, not just how much life they have left. I'm 33, and if you told me that a ventilator would only increase my survival chance by 10%, I'd unequivocally choose to take the chances to die more comfortable and capable.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoThat's certainly a person choice, but given the nature of the disease, if you get to that point, you're going to pass uncomfortable and unable to communicate with your loved ones. It's the nature of this particular beast. I don't want a doc not ventilating me just for a more comfortable end of life, because it won't be. At least on a ventilator I'll be in a coma.
- kerkeslager 7y agoI won't argue with you on the nature of the disease because I simply don't know enough about it, but that's sort of irrelevant to my point. My point isn't that people should never be put on ventilators. My point is that the decision to ventilate or not isn't just based on whether it increases the chances of survival. You need to also look at the suffering it causes. It may be that, as you're claiming, it doesn't cause more suffering, so in that case it makes sense to give it a try. I'm more inclined to think that that question needs to be asked on a case by case basis, however.