Dying can be denied food

The Sun (UK) ^ | July 28, 2005 | PETE BELL

[Mrs. Don-o]

THE high court ruled today doctors do have the power to withdraw food and drink from terminally ill patients - even if it is against their wishes.

The General Medical Council (GMC) was appealing against a previous ruling that gave Lesley Burke - who suffers from a degenerative brain condition - the right to insist on nutrition during the final stages of his illness...

The appeal judges were told {that]a patient did not have the right to demand any particular form of treatment...

Joyce Robins, co-director of human rights campaign group Patient Concern, said the decision was a disappointment.

She said: "Doctors again have extraordinary power over us, making decisions on how and when we die...."The right to food and water is a right to simple basic sustenance but because they are considered treatment, they can now be taken away.

"This is only round one. We will take this all the way to Strasbourg if we have to."

[k2blader]

Not sure why the question offended you since you were the one first to broach the subject. Sometimes yes or no questions are helpful for clarification. Thank you for answering an honest question honestly.

Re. your question, how is that relevant to the discussion? On what evidence in my previous postings is it based?

[kingu]

Not sure why the question offended you since you were the one first to broach the subject. Sometimes yes or no questions are helpful for clarification. Thank you for answering an honest question honestly.

It was a loaded question that was open to any interpretation. It made no qualification if the person had the ability to feed themselves, or if there were those who were willing to feed them. It also made no qualification for charities handling the effort as well.

Do I believe that the government has the responsibility to care from me from cradle to grave? Absolutely not. I've had it up to here with the nanny state. If I'm in my declining years, it is my responsibility to ensure that I have adequate plans for my last moments on this earth. If an accident occurs and the state declines to care for me, I have to hope that there will be some charitable group - perhaps my own family - who will give a rip. But I won't blame in the slightest the lack of desire of the government to give me care.

The only way the government has unlimited resources to give unlimited care is through unlimited taxation and unlimited growth. I wouldn't do that to my fellow citizens.

[Chode]

End Stage Socialism...

[SweetCaroline]

exactly what Terri Shavio episode was about, opening the door to this Pandora's Box!!

Why would anyone be surprised????

[k2blader]

Maybe I should've been more specific and said qualifying the "yes" or "no" would be fine as well. I guess I'm just tired of seeing people launch into replies *without* clearly answering "yes" or "no" right from the start.

Putting that aside, after reading your comments I think we might agree more than we disagree.

My own answer to the question would go something like this:

No, I do not support denying food and water to all ill people who want it but for whatever reason are forced to rely on the taxpayers to pay the bill. Because to do so would be to support murdering them, even though it would be correct to say taxpayers *shouldn't* be footing the bill. This dilemma was caused and has been made worse by the people's general support for a semi-socialized health care system. The only way to solve it is to grandfather out taxpayer-funded health care and fully return the responsibility over to individuals, families, churches, and charities.

Another question, if you don't mind.. In light of your comments, I take it you are not receiving any money from fellow taxpayers at all in the form of Medicare or SS?

[RightWhale]

if you're unable to feed yourself, they have no obligation

The State has no obligation to individuals anyway. Medical care is an institute of the State.

[k2blader]

The State has no obligation to individuals anyway. Medical care is an institute of the State.

Exactly.

If one supports denying food and water to people who rely on taxpayer-funded health care, it would only be logical that he also supports denying *any* medical care to people who rely on taxpayer-funded health care.

[kingu]

Indeed, I think we agree far more than we disagree - medical care should return to the private sector rather than public entities which traditionally provided only a rarely used safety net. Instead, that safety net has become the standard - that the net would end up with holes is hardly shocking.

No, I do not receive any SS or Medicare. When I want medical care, I go to the doctor, I negotiate with him what the fees will be for his services, and I pay him out of hand. I dread the concept of ending up in emergency care since I will have zero ability to control the costs involved. To handle that, I carry emergency services medical coverage because that insurance can negotiate with the hospital for costs.

I greatly dislike that situation. I know my insurance will be not just paying for my medical care, but for the medical care of those who skip their bills (either don't pay or give false information.) I'll also be supporting what medical care the government declines to pay for. I'm a business person, I don't mind people making a reasonable profit, but it has grown far out of control.

Part of the problem is the virtually complete removal of market forces on our medical care. If your employer provides insurance, you're told which insurance is available and how much you get to pay. No connection is made between use of service and the costs involved. Some companies, to the criticism of many, are starting to give employees more and more of a feel of how much medical coverage costs. But still, it divorces the actual costs from what people are contributing.

If I had a hand in creating legislation to start fixing this problem, my first effort would be requiring all hospitals, clinics, etc to provide an invoice to the consumer detailing what the retail price of their care was, and how much the insurance company paid for it. My second effort would be to require all clinics, hospitals, etc to provide a printed price list that is available for all requests. The pair of initiatives would at least start to put these costs before the public, rather than buried in company health care plans and public budgets.

People will not begin to look for a solution until the problem is bluntly shown to them.

[kingu]

If one supports denying food and water...

It should be made clear here that the actual action in question, rather than the overly broad judgment, was seeking a ruling on if intravenous application of nutrition and fluids was a medical treatment or ordinary care. The government hospital was not trying to deny meals to patients where the patient feeds him or herself.

I'm sure that this is already understood, but some others reading this might not understand.

[k2blader]

If I had a hand in creating legislation to start fixing this problem, my first effort would be requiring all hospitals, clinics, etc to provide an invoice to the consumer detailing what the retail price of their care was, and how much the insurance company paid for it.

Interestingly, my HMO provides this (or something close to it). It's a little report they mail noting the date and type of service, the charge, the "provider adjustment", the eligible charge, the benefit amount, and what I owe the provider (which is nearly always zero, or I think once or twice a very small sum).

If I'm honest about it, I glance at these (sometimes I may may make a brief mental exclamation: "It costs *that* much for a dental cleaning??!) then put them aside somewhere where they gather dust.

Maybe my case if different because I'm young, healthy, and have access to a health care plan through my employer (which I suspect is built into his cost of hiring me), but I'm just not sure if showing prices to people will make much of a difference. I'm pretty sure showing prices to people on Medicare won't make much of a difference since that money is "free" or somehow "deserved"..

[eeriegeno]

Deja vu, Terri??????

[k2blader]

The government hospital was not trying to deny meals to patients where the patient feeds him or herself.

Respectfully, I think this is where we may disagree. I think whether or not a patient is able to feed himself is irrelevant. Little babies can't feed themselves, but we would never think of not helping them with that.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'e got a friend in the UK. I'll email him and ask if he knows what the deal is with their National "Health" "Service." Are they a 100% monopoly? Are there private options, but only for the super-rich. T'would be good to know.

[kittymyrib]

This is what you end up with when the government is in charge of your health care. This case should be exhibit B in the case against socialized medicine. Exhibit A was the case in England where the government decided to deny care to a sick infant against the parents wishes because it was a "waste" of health care dollars. Giving politicians and bureaucrats the power of life and death makes them gods...something they crave, by the way.