[Image by André Koehne via Wikimedia Commons]
The film concludes with a statement that people like the man depicted die in awful ways “[d]espite the best available palliative care”. This statement is at odds with the film, which depicts him NOT receiving “the best available palliative care”.
Why did the poor man NOT receive “the best available palliative care”? The film does not tell us why. The statement at the conclusion of the film does not tell us why. We are left to wonder why this poor man and his family did NOT receive “the best available palliative care” for their suffering.
This film is a powerful depiction of the suffering experienced by patients and their families when they do NOT receive “the best available palliative care”. This film about suffering and suboptimal palliative care should lead us to demand better access to “the best available palliative care” from our politicians.
You can watch the R-rated (suitable for persons aged 18 years and over) film here.
palliverse.com 
I do not plan to watch this video. And I can understand why it might be banned from various portals. But I will be very interested in reading how others respond to this video. Do you think that it helps the right-to-die? Do you think that other methods of controlling the suffering should have been tried? Who was most responsible for the suffering? Even without the right-to-die, we always do have the right to have our suffering treated. Read more about the various uses of drugs to deal with pain and other forms of suffering, especially at the end of life: https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark—freelibrary-3puxk/SG-INCRE.html. This chapter is entitled: “Comfort Care Only: Easing the Passage into Death”.
LikeLike
This video in and of itself is heartbreaking insofar as the fact that the gentleman in question is not receiving palliative care due to the setting he has been placed in. This is not necessarily a right-to-die film as much as showing the suffering of a man in the throes of his bodily demise that does not have a say in the treatment he is receiving. If it is banned, it is because people do not want to face the fact that as unpleasant as it is, we all will die, and it won’t be on terms that we approve of or accept.
LikeLike
I am neither pro nor against right-to-die. I believe this is a decision that every person has the right to make for themselves. I am a proponent of hospice and in-home care, and allowing one to be as comfortable as possible as their body prepares for demise and cease of function.
There was no demonstration of palliative care here as the man suffering was in a hospital setting, where the sole purpose is to keep the patient alive and “comfortable” as long as possible. Had he been in a hospice or home care setting, it would have been more fitting with the Palliverse community beliefs and representations. Hospitals do not exist to “nurture”, but to heal and prolong that which we all will face at one point or another, which is death. The manner in which we pass is wholly dependent upon our family/friends/loved ones if we are so incapacitated that we cannot make the decisions ourselves. This man clearly had no willful power to speak up for or against the care he was receiving, and the family selfishly allowed him to undergo painful (based on the look in his eyes and his grunts of pain and discomfort, as well as the heart-wrenching reactions of his daughter whilst he is undergoing treatment) life-saving procedures because they were not yet willing to release him. Please do not base the right-to-die movement upon this video, solely because none of us truly know what this poor soul’s last wishes were, whether or not they were honored, and lastly, because he did not receive the palliative care that we have grown to expect in our society.
LikeLike