www.ai117.com

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if she had mental *** but the judge,in this case,has decided that she simply cannot allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn.And possibly it will be the problem with the finding of the state that the patient ** remained in her cared for in the nursing home in the north of england,but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.

Alex_168World

The family event.
A 51-year-old woman who was seriously 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 had been told she would not be allowed to die. Now, this is a landmark ruling because although we had family coming here in the Boston, asking judge to withdraw food and hydration from their loved one and the answers allowing to die. They have always been in a persistent vegetative 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.

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

heidi527

Hw:
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 be allowed to die, now this is a landmark ruling because although she had families coming here in the past and asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from their loved one, and 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 one 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 the 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 best 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.

yishan303

Homework
A family of M,a 51-year-old woman who was fiercely independent very active according to her sister until she can tracted a virus eight and an half years ago and become 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 and asking judges to withdraw food and hydration from their x necess,allowing them to die.They have always been in a persistent,bagistive to state with no awareness of what's going on around them.The problem for Mr.justice Baker in this case which she described as tragic and one with devastating consequence for the family or band who we are not allowed to name to preserve the family nonimity and dignity,was that she is in what is described as being a minamilly,conscious state.Now that's only been a medal who diagnosis since 2002.It's very difficult to define it exactly but what it means is that on occassion and irratically.The patient will show some kind of deliberate response now.The family argued at them had no quality of life.No enjoyment,no dignity,they believe she feels pain and is suffering they say she can not communicate meaning x.

The official Celisas appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that.She said:she understood the family,genuinely loved him 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 be on respond to touch.

Now the family said that M made it very clear before she became L that in fact she would never want to be relied on others to continue living alive dependent to others even if she had meant to factcle.But the judge,in this case,is decided that he simply can not allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn and part of this will be the problem with defending the state that patient M reamins in she is careful 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 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!

Inuyasha1366

Homework~
The family of M,a 51-year-old woman who is fiercely independent,very active according to her sister until she contracted the virals 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 and asking judges to withdraw food and hydration for their loved ones,the essence allowing them to die,they have always been in a persystem,fetched to state,with no awareness with what's going on around them.The problem for Mrs Justice Beker in this case is describe it a tragic,one would devascating conquesence for the family of M,we are not allowed to name to preserve the family's anonymity and dignity with she is more than described as being a minimily conscious state.And now that has only been a mental diagnosis since 2002.It's very difficult to define it exactly,but what it means is that on occasion and erractically,the patient would show some kind of deliberate responds,now family argued that them have no quality of life,no enjoyment,no dignity,they believe she feels pain and is suffering,they say she can't not conmunicate meaningfully,the official solicitor appointed by the court on her behalf strongly opposed that,she said she understood the family genuine loved them and were motivated by her best interests,she argued "that in fact,I am 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 ould never want to be reliant to others to continue living a life dependent to others,even if she had mental facuties,but the judge in this case is decided that he simply can not allow her food and hydration to be withdrawn,and part of this will be the problem with the defining the state,the patient M remains in.She is cared for nurcing home in the North of England,but the judge has wrote that her family despite being motivated by love for patient M,cannot be allowed to ask doctors to let her die.

jessieleaves

The family of M, a 51-year-old woman, who is fiecely independent, very active according to her sister until she contracted a virus eight and a half years ago and became very severly brain damaged. They have been told she will not be allowed to die.
Now this is landmark ruling because although we had families coming here in the past asking judges to withdraw food, and hydration from that loved ones, in essence alowing her to die. They have always been in a persistent vegitative 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, a one with devastating consequences for the family of M who we are not allowed to name it to preserve the family's anominity and dignity, was that she is more as we described as being a minimum consious state, and that's the 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 to them had no quality 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 them and were motivated by her best interest. 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 very clear before she became ill that in fact she would never want to be reliant on others to continue to living a life dependent on others, even if she had mental faculties.
But the judge in this case is 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. Careful in a nursing home in the North of England. But the judge has wrote that her family despite being motivated by love, poor patient M cannot be allowed to ask her doctors to let her die.

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