Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

reads.

Supreme court hearing on end of life decisions

in Front of the BGH, a man demands compensation for damages, whose father has been artificially kept alive. The judges discuss your own concerns: May courts determine whether a life is worth living?

lawyer Wolfgang Putz, who represents the applicant's son, was not satisfied with today's negotiations in front of the Federal court of justice: "Everything that was spoken, is so other-worldly." Because it was clear, like a good doctor would behave:

"A good doctor does not need a new set of guidelines, but simply says: I can't answer. Then he brings the family members and says, we need to deal slowly with the thoughts that we let your father go now, too. It is time to rethink that has always existed."

The artificially-fed, the father it went from bad to worse

So it was in the case, the BGH negotiated, but not gone. The father of the plaintiff showed since 1997, symptoms of progressive dementia. Because he was not able to eat at some point, well, he was in 2006, with the middle of Seventy, a probe for artificial feeding. The son lived in the United States. For the father there was an official maintainer who approved the Insertion of the probe.

But the father it was getting worse over time. He had often inflammation, fever, respiratory symptoms, and lung, was also wundgelegen again and again. At the beginning of 2010, the doctor wrote in the medical record: From now on, only palliative care. One and a half years later, in the autumn of 2011, the father died.

Now the son went to court. At the latest, from 2010, had been clear, the doctor should not have been allowed to continue with the tube feeding. The higher regional court of Munich spoke to the son even € 40,000 for Pain and suffering: The doctor's behaviour was wrong. He would have to discuss the matter, at least in detail with the supervisor.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.