[英伦广角] 【整理】2011-10-01 法官的判定

yrmy

Coma Woman Not Allowed To Die


Relatives of a severely brain-damaged woman have lost their high court battle to allow her to die.

[flv]http://download.putclub.com/newupdate/multitopic/British_Vision/putclub.com_2011bv088oma-woman-m-ruling.flv[/flv]

【电信1】 RealVideo / mp3

【电信2】 RealVideo / mp3

【网通/教育网】 RealVideo / mp3

点击进入英伦广角整理稿汇总页面

点击进入多主题版块听写规则(新手必读) 。

版主提示:
一、若是自己的听写稿, 请发帖时标注'Homework'.
二、若是改稿, 请发帖时标注'on 某某人'并在修改处标红.
三、为了达到最快的下载速度,推荐使用迅雷高速下载本站音频/视频材料.

由quanyingbao19在 整理的参考文本：
The family of M, a 51-year-old woman who was fiercely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted a virus eight and a half years ago and became very severely brain damaged, they have been told she would not be allowed to die. Now this is a landmark ruling because although we've had families coming here in the past and asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from their loved ones, in essence allowing them to die, they have always been in a persistent vegetative state with no awareness of what's going on around them. The problem for Mr Justice Baker in this case, which he described as tragic and one with devastating consequences for the family of M, who we are not allowed to name to preserve the family's anonymity and dignity, was that she is in what was described as being a minimally conscious state.

Now that has only been a medical diagnosis since 2002. It's very difficult to define it exactly but what it means is that on occasion and erratically, the patient will show some kind of deliberate response. Now the family argued that M had no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity. They believe she feels pain and is suffering. They say she cannot communicate meaningfully. But the official solicitor appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that. She said she understood the family genuinely loved M and were motivated by her best interests; but she argued that in fact M could possibly communicate by the use of a switch and could feel, respond to touch.

Now the family say that M made it very clear before she became ill that in fact she would never want to be reliant on others, to continue living a life dependent on others, even if she had mental faculties. But the judge in this case has decided that he simply cannot allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn. And part of this will be the problem with defining the state that patient M remains in. She's cared for in a nursing home in the north of England, but the judge has ruled that her family, despite being motivated by love for patient M, cannot be allowed to ask doctors to let her die.

下载LRC文件

TosSBoyyy

HW：
      The family A, the 51-year-old woman who was phsyically independent, very active, according to her sister, until she contracted to virus, eight and half years ago, and became very severly brain damage. They have been told, she would not be allowed to die. Now, this is a L ruling, because although she had families coming here in the P, asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from that " " license, allowing A to die. They have always been in the persistence v state with no awarness of what's going on around A, the problem from its justice debate in this case, where she described is tragic,a one with davastating consequences for the family o, who they are not allowed to n, perseve the family in a limited, in a dignity which she is more described as the being a minimumly conscious state. Now that's only been a medical diagnosis since 2002, its very difficult to define it exactly but what it means,is that on occasion, uneradically, the patient will show some kind of delibery response now. The family argue that A had no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity, they believe she feels ok and is suffering, they say she cannot communicate meaning thing.But the officials listened to a pointed by the court on H, strongly oppose that, she said she understood that the family genuinly love A, and were motivated by her as interest. But she argued that in fact A could possibly communicate by the use of a switch, and could feel respond to touch. Now the family said that A made it very clear before she became ill, that in fact she would never want to be reliance on others to continue living on life, dependent on others, even if she had mental faculties. But the judge, in this case is decided that he suddently cannot allowed her food, and hydration to be withdrawn, and possibly this will be the problem with defining the state, the patient remains in she's c, in the nursing home, in the north of England. But the judge has ruled, that her family, despite being motivated by love for patient her, cannot be allowed to ask doctors to let her die.

1143FZX

the family ovan,a 51-year-old woman who was serious independend very active according to her sister.until she contracted virious 8.5 years ago and became very sevily brain damage ,they have been told she would not be allowed to die.now this is a learn-more ruling because of very of their family coming here and then past and asking judges to withdraw food and hydrition from their love one.and the answers allowing them to die.they'll spend ,in a posiston vege** to a stage, for know whereness of what's going on around them.children for mr.**** in this case ,which she just described that tragect and one with ** concequences to the family ovan,who are not allowed to namege to preserve the family 's ***ty and decrity,which she is more *** described as been a *** ***.now there is the only been a medical *** since 2002.it's very difficult to define it exactly for what it means.it's the only occasion on the rotecly.the patient would show some kind of deliberatly response now.the family are give the then partner of the quality of the life,no enjoyment ,no dignety.they believe she feels calm and suffering.they say she cannot communicate meaning ** but their facial *** appointed by the putong ** behalf,strongly apposed that.she said she understood the family genourly love them and motivated by her ** interets,but she argued that in fight and could possibly communicate for the use of the switch and could feel the respond to tonch.the family say that ann made it very clear before she became ill then find she would never want to be relied on others to continue living alive dependent on others even if she had mental *** but the judge,in this case,has decided that she simply cannot allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn.And possibly it will be the problem with the finding of the state that the patient ** remained in her cared for in the nursing home in the north of england,but judges has roled that her family ,despite the motivated by love for pationtant,cannot be allowed to us doctors tolet her die.

This post was generated by put listening repetition system,  Check the original dictation thread!

shibanianhou

The family of M, a 51-year-old woman, she was fiercely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted a virus eight and a half years ago, and became very severely brain-damaged, they have been told she would not allowed to die, now this is a landmark ruling because although she had families coming here in the past asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from their loved one, is in essence allowing M to die, M's always been in a persistent vegetative state with no awareness of what's going on around them.
The problem from Mr. Justice Baker in this case, what he describes is tragic, a whelm with devastating consequences for the family or M who are not allowed to be named, she and her family are on anonymity and dignity, which that she is what is described as being a minimally conscious state, now, that’s only been a medical diagnosis since 2002.
It's very difficult to define it exactly, but what it means is on occasion, erratically, the patient will show some kind of deliberate response now, the family arguing that M had no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity, they even believe she feels pain, and is suffering, they say she cannot communicate meaning thing but the official solicitor appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that, she said she understood the family genuinely love M, and were motivated by her basic interest, but she argued that, in fact, M could possibly communicate by the use of switch and could feel respond to touch, now the family say that M made very clear before she became ill, and in fact she would never want to be relying on other to continue living a life depended on others, even if she had mental faculties, but the judge in this case has decided that that she simply can not allowed her food and hydration to be withdrawn, and part of this will be the problem with defining the state, but patient M remains in, she is cared for in a nursing home in the North of England. but judge has ruled that her family, despite being motivated by love for patient M, can not be allowed to ask doctors to let her die.

littlecase

/HW/
The family of them. A 51-year-old woman who is fiercely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted the virus eight and a half years ago, and became very severely brain damaged. They have been told she will not be allowed to die. Now this is a landmark ruling, because though family coming here and asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from their loved ones * licenses allowing them to die.

They have always been in the persistent vegetate state with no one awareness of what is going on around them. The problem for Mrs * in this case *she described a tragic of one is devastating consequence *family of them who are not allowed to * and dignity in which She is ** as being in a minimally constant state. That’s only been a medical diagnosis since 2002. It’s very difficult to define it exactly. But what it means is on the occasion * the patient would show some kind of deliberate response. Now the family argued that they have no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity. They believe she feels * and suffering. They say she cannot communicate feelings *

But the official facilitator appointed by the court on her strongly opposed. She said she understood the family genuinely love them, and motivated by her * interest. But she argued that in fact she could possibly communicate by the use of switch and could feel response to touch.

Now the family said unmade very clear before she became ill that, in fact she would never * to be reliant on others to continue living alive dependent on others even if she had mental faculties. But the judge, in this case, has decided that she simply cannot allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn. And part of this will be the problem with defining the state that patient remains in. She is cared for in the nursing home in the north of England. But the judge has ruled that her family, despite being motivated by love, * cannot allow our doctors to let her die.

陈阳辉

Homework
  The family of them,a 51 year old woman who is firecely independent, very active,according to her sister,until she contracted virus eight and a half years ago;and became very severely brain damged.Thay have been told she was not be allowed to die ,and now this is a landmark rolling because although we have families coming here in the past and asking judges to withdraw food and highdration with my loved one, is in essence allowing M to die, M  is always been in a persistant vegetative state with no awareness of what's going on around them.
The problem from Mr. Justice Baker in this case, what he describes is tragic, a whem with deva   ing consequences for the family or M who are not allowed to be named, she and her family are on anonymity and dignity, which that she is what is described as being a minimally conscious state, now, that’s only been a medical diag     since 2002.
It's very difficult to define it exactly, but what it means is on occasion, erratically, the patient will show some kind of deliberate response now, the family arguing that M had no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity, they even believe she feels pain, and is suffering, they say she cannot communicate meaning thing but the official solicitor appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that, she said she understood the family genuinely love M, and were motivated by her basic interest, but she argued that, in fact, M could possibly communicate by the use of switch and could feel respond to touch, now the family say that M made very clear before she became ill, and in fact she would never want to be relying on other to continue living a life depended on others, even if she had mental faculties, but the judge in this case has decided that that she simply can not allowed her food and hydration to be withdrawn, and part of this will be the problem with defining the state, but patient M remains in, she is cared for in a nursing home in the north of England. but judge has ruled that her family, despite being motivated by love for patient M, can not be allowed to ask doctors to let her die.


This post was generated by put listening repetition system,  Check the original dictation thread!

panzhang

HW:
The family of Evan, a 51-year-old woman who is a fiercely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted virus 8.5 years ago, and became very severely brain damage. They have been told she would not be allowed to die. Now this is a landmark ruling because although we have families coming here in the past asking judges to withdraw food and hydration for their loved ones, and essences allowing them to die. they have always been in a persystem, fetched to state, with no awareness of what’s going on around them. The problem for Mr. Justice back in this case which he described it a tragic when we devastating consequences for the family of Evan who we are. not allowed to name preserve the family’s limity and dignity which she is more //with described as been a minimally conscious state. now that’s only been a medical diagnoses since 2002. it’s very difficult to define it exactly. But what if means is that on the occasion unironcly, the patient who shows some kinds of deliberate response now. The family argued that them have no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity. They believed she feeled pain and suffering. they say she can’t communicate meaningfully but the officials selects her a point by the court on her behalf, strongly opposed that she said she understood the family generally loved them and will motivated by her best interest, but she argued that in fact Evan could possibly communicate by the use of switch and could feel respond to touch. now the family say that Evan made it very clearly before she became ill that in fact she would never want to be reliance to others to continue living a life depended on others, even if she had, mental faculties, but the judge in this case has decided that he simply can not allow her food and hydration to be withdraw. And part of this will be the problem with defining the state, the patient Evan remains in she’s carefull in a nursing home in the north of England. But the judges ruled that her family despite being motivated by love full patient Evan can not be allowed towards doctors to let her die.

renstark

Homework
Coma woman not allowed to die
The family of Aim a 51 year old woman she was physically independent very active according to her sister until she contracted a virus eight and a half year ago and become very serve brain damage they have been told she would not been allowed die. Now this is a alarm of ruling because those families coming here in the past and asking judges to withdraw food and hyderation from their * allowing them to die, their avoids in a  persistence vegetative state with no awareness of what’s going on around them, the problem for Mr. Justies Baker in this case which he just described tragedy, aware of debestation consequence to the family of them who we are not allowed to name to preserve in a limited and diginity with that she is mortally describe as being a meaningless conscious state now that only been a medical digonse system 2002, it’s a difficult to define it exactly but what it means it’s occasion and *, the patient would show some kind of deliberate response, now the family argue to them had no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity, they believe she feels pain and it’s suffering they she cannot communicate *, but official listener point for the quarter on her in heart, she strongly oppose she understood the family genuine love him and were motivate by her best interest , but she argued that in fact aim she could possibility communicate by the use of a switch and could feel respond to touch, now the family say Aim made it very clear before she became ill that in fact she could never wound to be reliance on others to continue living a life depend on others even if they had mental facalty, but the judge in this case is decided that she simply cannot allow her food and hyderation to be withdraw and possible of this will be the problem with defining the state that patient aims at remains in * and nursing home in the North of England but the judge’s role that her family despite motivated by love for patient cannot allowed doctor to let her die.

gloria_3211

Homework
        The family of Evan, a 51-year-old woman who is a fiercely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted virus 8.5 years ago, and became very severely brain damage. They have been told she would not be allowed to die. Now this is a landmark ruling because although we have families coming here in the past asking judges to withdraw food and hydration for their loved ones and essences allowing them to die. They have always been in a persistence fetched to a state with no awareness of what’s going on around them. The problem for Mr. Justice back in this case which he described it a tragic when we devastating consequences for the family of Evan who we are not allowed to name preserve the family’s limit and dignity which she is more persist strong with described as been a minimally conscious state. Now that’s only been a medical diagnoses since 2002. It’s very difficult to define it exactly. But what it means is that on the occasion and ironically, the patient who shows some kinds of deliberate response now. The family argued that they have no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity. They believed she feels pain and suffering. They say she cannot communicate meaningfully but the officials selects her a point by the court on her behalf, strongly opposed that she said she understood the family generally loved them and was motivated by her best interest, but she argued that in fact Evan could possibly communicate by the use of switch and could feel respond to touch. Now the family say that Evan made it very clearly before she became ill that in fact she would never want to be reliant on others to continue living a life dependent on others, even if she had mental faculties, but the judge in this case has decided that he simply can not allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn. And part of this will be the problem with defining the state, the patient Evan remains in she’s careful in a nursing home in the north of England. But the judges ruled that her family despite being motivated by love full patient Evan can not be allowed towards doctors to let her die.

QYB

HW

The family of M, a 51-year-old woman who was fiercely independent, very active according to here sister until she contracted a virus eight and a half years ago and became very severely brain damaged, they have been told she will not be allowed to die. Now this is a landmark ruling because although we've got families coming here in the past and asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from their loved ones, in essence allowing them to die, they have always been in a persistent vegetative state with no awareness of what's going on around them.

The problem for Mr Justice Baker in this case, which he described as tragic and one with devastating consequences for the family of M, who we are not allowed to name to preserve the family's anonymity and dignity, was that she is in what was being described as being a 'minimally conscious state'. Now that has only been a medical diagnosis since 2002. It's very difficult to define it exactly but what it means is on occasion and erratically, the patient will show some kind of deliberate response.

Now the family have argued that M had no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity. They believe she feels pain and is suffering. They say she cannot communicate meaningfully. But the official solicitor appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that. She said she understood the family genuinely loved M and were motivated by her best interests; but she argued in fact M could possibly communicate by the use of a switch and could feel, respond to touch.

Now the family say that M made it very clear before she became ill that in fact she would never want to be reliant on others, to continue living a life dependent on others, even if she had mental faculties. But the judge in this case has decided that he simply cannot allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn. And part of this will be the problem with defining the state which patient M remains in. She's cared for in a nursing home in the north of England, but the judge ruled that her family, despite being motivated by love for patient M, cannot be allowed to ask doctors to let her die.

ppisdeep

The family of Evan, a 51-year-old woman who is a fiercely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted virus 8.5 years ago, and became very severely brain damage. They have been told she would not be allowed to die. Now this is a landmark ruling because although we have families coming here in the past asking judges to withdraw food and hydration for their loved ones, and essences allowing them to die. they have always been in a persystem, fetched to state, with no awareness of what’s going on around them. The problem for Mr. Justice back in this case which he described it a tragic when we devastating consequences for the family of Evan who we are. not allowed to name preserve the family’s limity and dignity which she is more ……with described as been a minimally conscious state. now that’s only been a medical diagnoses since 2002. it’s very difficult to define it exactly. But what if means is that on the occasion unironcly, the patient who shows some kinds of deliberate response now. The family argued that them have no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity. They believed she feeled pain and suffering. they say she can’t communicate meaningfully but the officials selects her a point by the court on her behalf, strongly opposed that she said she understood the family generally loved them and will motivated by her best interest, but she argued that in fact Evan could possibly communicate by the use of switch and could feel respond to touch. now the family say that Evan made it very clearly before she became ill that in fact she would never want to be reliance to others to continue living a life depended on others, even if she had, mental faculties, but the judge in this case has decided that he simply can not allow her food and hydration to be withdraw. And part of this will be the problem with defining the state, the patient Evan remains in she’s carefull in a nursing home in the north of England. But the judges ruled that her family despite being motivated by love full patient Evan can not be allowed towards doctors to let her die.

sxy1837

    The family of Evan,a 51-year-old woman who was firecly independent very active ,according to her sisiter,until she contracted virus eight a half years ago and became very severely brain damage.They have been told she would not be allowed to die.now this is a * ruling because although we have families coming here in the past and asking judgers to with draw food and hydration for their love ones,that is allowing them to die .The able way is been in the persisitent * state for no awareness of what's gonging on around them.The problem for Mr Justice Baker in this case was he described this tragic a one-way * consequence for the family Evan who are not allowed to name,to preserve the familie's limity and dignity which she is more described as been * conscious state.Now that's only been a madam who died * since 2002.It's very difficult to define it exactly the word it means its *cation and *,the patient who show some kind * response now.The family argued then had no quality of life,no enjoyment,no dignity.The believe she feels pain and is suffering,they say she cannot communicating meaning but thier official * appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that she said she understood the family gernerally love them and motivated by her best interest.But she argued that in fact * could possibly communicate by the use of switch and could feel respond to touch.Now the family say that * made it very clear before she became ill,but in fact she would never want to be rely on others to continue living * depended on others,even if she had mental *.But the judge in this case is decided that he * cannot allowed her food and hydration to be withdraw and pass this will be the problem with defining the state that patient time remains its careful in the nursing home in the north of England,but judge* that her family despiting motivated by love full patient time cannot be allowed to  us doctors to let her die

This post was generated by put listening repetition system,  Check the original dictation thread!

sunpinglove

The family ovan,a 51-year-old woman who was serious independend very active according to her sister.Until she contracted virious 8.5 years ago and became very sevily brain damage ,they have been told she would not be allowed to die.Now this is a learn-more ruling because of very of their family coming here and then past and asking judges to withdraw food and hydrition from their love one.and the answers allowing them to die.They'll spend ,in a posiston vege** to a stage, for know whereness of what's going on around them.children for mr. In this case ,which she just described that tragect and one with ** concequences to the family ovan,who are not allowed to namege to preserve the family 's duty and decrity,which she is more  described as been a child.Now there is the only been a medical  since 2002.It's very difficult to define it exactly for what it means.it's the only occasion on the rotecly.The patient would show some kind of deliberatly response now.the family are give the then partner of the quality of the life,no enjoyment ,no dignety.they believe she feels calm and suffering.They say she cannot communicate meaning ** but their facial appointed by the putong  behalf,strongly apposed that.she said she understood the family genourly love them and motivated by her interets,but she argued that in fight and could possibly communicate for the use of the switch and could feel the respond to tonch.the family say that ann made it very clear before she became ill then find she would never want to be relied on others to continue living alive dependent on others even if she had mental but the judge,in this case,has decided that she simply cannot allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn.And possibly it will be the problem with the finding of the state that the patient remained in her cared for in the nursing home in the north of england,but judges has roled that her family ,despite the motivated by love for pationtant,cannot be allowed to us doctors tolet her die.

This post was generated by put listening repetition system,  Check the original dictation thread!

sasha_lu

on QYB

The family of M, a 51-year-old woman who was fiercely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted a virus eight and a half years ago and became very severely brain damaged, they have been told she will not be allowed to die. Now this is a landmark ruling because although we've had families coming here in the past and asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from their loved ones, in essence allowing them to die, they have always been in a persistent vegetative state with no awareness of what's going on around them.

The problem for Mr Justice Baker in this case, which he described as tragic and one with devastating consequences for the family of M, who we are not allowed to name to preserve the family's anonymity and dignity, was that she is in what was described as being a 'minimally conscious state'. Now that has only been a medical diagnosis since 2002. It's very difficult to define it exactly but what it means is that on occasion and erratically, the patient will show some kind of deliberate response.

Now the family / argued that M had no quality of life, no enjoyment, no dignity. They believe she feels pain and is suffering. They say she cannot communicate meaningfully. But the official solicitor appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that. She said she understood the family genuinely loved M and were motivated by her best interests; but she argued that in fact M could possibly communicate by the use of a switch and could feel, respond to touch.

Now the family say that M made it very clear before she became ill that in fact she would never want to be reliant on others, to continue living a life dependent on others, even if she had mental faculties. But the judge in this case has decided that he simply cannot allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn. And part of this will be the problem with defining the state that patient M remains in. She's cared for in a nursing home in the north of England, but the judge has ruled that her family, despite being motivated by love for patient M, cannot be allowed to ask doctors to let her die.

嘟嘟鱼1

A family ovan, a 51- year-old woman, who is facility depending very active according to her sister, and to she contract the drivers the 18 hard years ago and became very siverely of brain-damaged. They've told that she would not be allowed to die, now this is a non more wooding, but because with the low part-time, coming hearing the part and asking the judge to with job, food and high jectiion for them love one to asking and allowing them to die.

They are available and persistant vetage state to never knowing what's going on around them. The problem to make this judge speak this she is tragic and want with accompany, but for the family ovan, we're all not allowed to name deserve family limited and denity with she's more ficility strive, as being a military control stay, and that's the only be a medical die in 2002.

It's very difficult to find it exactly but what it means it's noly a casion and that the patient will show some kind of very dilivery resposend, now the family arguing that they are not have qualitify life, no joyment, no dulity and they believe she feel pain and suffering. They said she cannot communicate meaning things. But a phisician appointed by the court stronly aposed that she said she understood that their family generally love them and amotivative find her best interests, but she argued that in fact and could possible communicate but use a switch and could be on respond to touch.

Now the family said they are very clear but boot shit became that the fact that she would never want to be rely on others to continue living her life to depend on others even if she had, man's or fact. But the judge in this case decided that he cannot allow her food and high jection to be with drawn and possible this will be the problem with the ficility the stay that the patient remaing she's careful and nuring home and the northern of England,but the judge law that her family despite of motivative by love whole patient cannot be allowed to let her die.