Posted on 05/18/2005 9:34:56 PM PDT by unseen
Government questions patients' right to treatment
ANGUS HOWARTH
A RIGHT of patients to demand life-prolonging treatment has "very serious implications" for National Health Service resources, appeal judges were told yesterday.
The health department claimed that if a right to artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH) treatment was established, patients would be able to demand other life-prolonging treatments.
The argument was put forward yesterday by the government as Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, intervened in a General Medical Council challenge to a High Court ruling which was hailed at the time as a breakthrough for the rights of terminally-ill patients.
Leslie Burke, 45, who has a degenerative brain condition, won the right last July to stop doctors withdrawing artificial nutrition or hydration treatment until he dies naturally. That decision is being challenged by the GMC, which wants to reverse the ruling.
Philip Sales, representing the Health Secretary, told a panel of three appeal judges headed by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Phillips: "A general right, as identified by the judge in the High Court, for an individual patient to require life-prolonging medical treatment has very serious implications for the functioning of the NHS. It may be interpreted as giving patients the right to demand certain treatments, contrary to the considered judgment of their medical team, that would lead to patients obtaining access to treatment that is not appropriate for them, and to inefficient [and unfairly skewed] use of resources within the NHS."
Mr Burke, of Mardale Road, Lancaster, who suffers from cerebellar ataxia, was in court in his wheelchair yesterday listening to the arguments for overturning the ruling, which he believes will save him from death by starvation, or thirst if ANH was withdrawn after he loses the ability to communicate.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.scotsman.com ...
Hey if the illegal Mexicans can demand it and get it, and if the deadbeat welfareites can get it, I want it too.
Now you know why I was so skeptical of the political grandstanding over this case. The President is her boss, she speaks for him.
I believe this is in England.
Scottish news direct from Scotland
"It may be interpreted as giving patients the right to demand certain treatments, contrary to the considered judgment of their medical team, that would lead to patients obtaining access to treatment that is not appropriate for them, and to inefficient [and unfairly skewed] use of resources within the NHS."
That is the single most scary sentence I've ever read. This is horrifying. If perchance I need to be put on a ventilator, my mind intact, but my breathing impaired, does this mean that "inefficient [and unfairly skewed] use of resources within the NHS," would be considered before my welfare and possible recovery?
Anyone remember C.S. Lewis' novel, That Hideous Strength? Sounds like he had a vision of the future.
The health department claimed that if a right to artificial nutrition or hydration (ANH) treatment was established, patients would be able to demand other life-prolonging treatments.
Within reason, I agree. Each case should have to be judged objectively on its own merits. If there is a reasonable chance of recovery with a patient returning to some quality of life, so be it; all reasonable resources should be directed toward effectuating that outcome.
However, if there is no (or little) chance of of returning some quality of life, sad though it may be, medical resources are not infinite and should be dispensed rationally.
Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I have already signed a DNR order with limited artifical hydration and nutritution when my time arrives...which as it turns out, may not be that far down the road!
Do no harm, unless that harm is found to be beneficial to the socialist state.
Thank You. I saw the source, but didn't know there was a Lancaster in Scotland.
I should think that the medical personnel are in the best position to make those difficult decisions. Families are in the least good position because of the intense emotional involvement and stress that they are understandably under.
It should definately not be either a governmental or insurance decision.
You are so right. It sounds like to me this man only wants to NOT be starved and dehydrated to death. That is ALL he wants. He already knows he is going to die. He just doesn't want to die like Teri did. Her death, I would guess, gave him nightmares.
I don't pretend to have all of the answers...or even any of them for that matter. What I do know is that we have limited resources to pay for these services and that by expending a disproportionate share on one, will deprive someone else who might be better served.
Health care should (and generally does) side with life over death.
Perhaps, a partial solution would be an aggressive promotional program educating people on the desirability of signing living wills, DNR's etc. to avoid the unnecessary (and expensive) complications as in the Schiavo case.
Actually, Lancaster is in Lancashire, which is in North-West England. The "Scotsman" doesn't just report the news in Scotland!
That explains it, Thank You.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.