Posted on 05/27/2010 11:51:09 AM PDT by Cardhu
Cancer patient forced by judge to have surgery A cancer patient is to be forced to undergo life-saving treatment against her wishes after a landmark ruling by a judge.
Doctors will be allowed forcibly to sedate the 55-year-old woman in her home and take her to hospital for surgery. She could be forced to remain on a ward afterwards.
The case has sparked an intense ethical and legal debate. Experts questioned whether lawyers and doctors should be able to override the wishes of patients and whether force was ever justified in providing medical care.
Treatment was ordered by Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division, in the Court of Protection, after surgeons at the woman's local hospital applied for permission to force the surgery on her. They argued that without it, advanced cancer of the uterus would kill her.
Sir Nicholas agreed because the woman, who has learning difficulties, was deemed incapable of making a rational decision about the operation.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The issues are still relevant though as Zer0 could soon have us all declared incompetent.
Isn’t she going to die eventually anyway? Taxpayer? Labor voter? Who knows?
Amazingly, she is competent enough to make all decisions except when she disagrees with the state-employee doctors.
Coming soon to a U.S. government health clinic near you!
"The Mental Capacity Act 2005 allows patients to specify in advance the circumstances under which they do not wish to receive further treatment, in legally-binding documents known as "living wills".
"The same law also allows the Court of Protection – a little-known body that previously only dealt with finances – to decide on the "best interests" of those who lack mental capacity and rule on their welfare and medical treatment."
The same type of thing happened last year in Minnesota. It was a teenager and he and his family wanted to treat his cancer using the natural, holistic approach. Judge ruled that he had to undergo chemo treatments.
This is not at unusual as one would imagine.
“Dr Evan Harris, a former member of the Commons science and technology committee, said: “In A&E departments up and down the country, patients without capacity, such as those drunk, drugged, psychotic, confused or with dementia, are treated seemingly against their will, day in and day out. Learning disability coupled with needle or hospital-phobia in a patient with cancer is unusual but is a relatively routine matter for clinical ethics.”
This is the fault of the previous administration.
bump
They are not saying she is temporarily incapacitated, but that she is permanent incapable of understanding her decision. They are also not saying she is incompetent for other life-affecting decisions.
I read the whole article and find it incredulous that they can forcibly treat her without invalidating her competence in any other aspect. This is NOT a temporary ruling - but applies to this woman in perpetuity - she is ruled incompetent to make any decision the doctors disagree with.
This is the kind of power that pediatrician groups would love to have over parents. Especially undesirables like gun-owners, bible-readers, homeschoolers, etc...
I did, and still think it sets a bad precedent. Where does one draw the line between 'mental incapacity' and 'mental competence'? Many would argue (incorrectly) that merely refusing medical treatment is proof enough of mental incompetence.
My Grandmother was diagnosed with cancer twice in mid-life. She recovered through prayer. She finally did develop cancer a third time and died of it - at the age of 91! (with medical treatment)
I agree with both of you it is a very difficult situation, that is why there is the controversy.
“...because the woman, who has learning difficulties, was deemed incapable of making a rational decision about the operation.”
“Learning difficulties,” seems way down the scale of mental incapacity or competence.
On the other hand, thank goodness there is absolutely no profit motive involved in this decision as neither the doctors or the hospital will benefit in any way whatsoever.
If they had complied with her change of mind I am sure many would be claiming ‘death panels’ - so perhaps getting the judicial ruling is the best form of protection for all concerned from future problems.
I disagree. We're either free, or we're not. If this woman has the legal authority to make her other life decisions, then she should be permitted to make this decision too (even though I strongly disagree with her choice). If she is not competent to make other decisions, then there should be one individual who does have the authority to make her daily life decisions, and that person should make the decision for her, unless the court signs her rent contract for her and controls her daily spending. The court was wrong to order the treatment, and the doctors were wrong to ask that the courts compel a free American to follow their orders.
This is just amazing.
Recently there was an article from the UK about a woman doctor who needed cancer treatment, and needed a new drug that would save her life.
They decided she wasn’t worth it.
And now this?
Little minds with nothing to do but interfere with other people’s lives. Hell on Earth, indeed.
In England people are left in their homes and caretakers visit.
Just like Terri Schiavo. If the state wants to kill you it will.
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.