Posted on 06/15/2012 11:53:31 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Mr Justice Peter Jackson found that the 32-year-old, who has other chronic health conditions, ''lacked capacity'' to make a decision about life-sustaining treatment.
Sitting at the Court of Protection in London, the judge said he had to balance the preservation of life against 'personal independence.'
He said the case had ''raised for the first time in my experience the real possibility of life-sustaining treatment not being in the best interests of a person who, while lacking capacity, is fully aware of her situation''.
Giving his conclusion in a judgment made public today, he said: ''The competing factors are, in my judgment, almost exactly in equilibrium, but having considered them as carefully as I am able, I find that the balance tips slowly but unmistakably in the direction of life-preserving treatment.
''In the end, the presumption in favour of the preservation of life is not displaced.''
He declared that ''it is lawful and in her best interests for her to be fed, forcibly if necessary''.
The judge ruled that ordering her to be fed was ''proportionate and necessary in order to protect her right to life''.
''Albeit gravely unwell, she is not incurable. She does not seek death, but above all she does not want to eat or to be fed.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Wow... so it’s come to this. The idea of liberty is dead. This will start over there and make its way into the UN and eventually the minds of all the squishy idiot progressives in this country.
We have a right to life, and if that means that we don’t want to eat and it causes us to die, that doesn’t mean you can force us to eat. Unreal.
Did he also order some counseling? There are serious underlying problems for most eating disorders, AFAIK.
This will not sit well with their socialized medicne death panels.
The next step will be government intervention to stop the obese from eating so much.
bfl
I tell my husband all the time that I do not want to be kept alive on a vent or on tube feedings.....do I know have to worry that they will force me to do these things?.....btw...anorexics can also be bulemic....
It’s a mental disorder characterized most notably by poor self-image and a distorted view of one’s body. There are myriad drugs on the market to help these people, if they so choose.
Some people just don’t want to eat. Look at some of these Indian people who claim to live 100 years eating little more than some berries and drinking fetid water from the Ganges.
Anorexia CAN be conquered!
How many people “lacking capacity” are not force fed, but intentionally starved and dehydrated to death (i.e. Terri Schiavo) everyday?
Of course, you know, that means some doctor may interpret that to mean you don’t want the simplest life-saving treatment.
Just when you think you’ve seen every possible situation, something new pops up.
C’mon judge. Just declare her a 32-year-old fetus and the rest of the logic is easy. < /sarc >
She is very tiny, has had to have her front teeth capped, and in the summer she runs at 3pm in the heat of the day wearing long sweat pants and a sweat top, with an additional band of some sort around her waist to cause additional sweating. She looks like death in that heat.
And as probably would be expected, her children have suffered due to her complete obsession with eating.
After all, we made it legal to starve the mentally handicapped.
When anorexia/bulimia are mixed with an exercise obsession, it can be devastating. I dated a woman who was that combination AND an alcoholic on top of it. Almost like clockwork, she would put down a TON of shots, beers, mixed drinks, you name it, and she would force herself to vomit shortly thereafter.
She ran marathons, took a spinning class almost daily, and she was an exceptionally picky eater. I figured out her “secret” when we first kissed and it tasted like a vomit-flavored sour candy.
Correct.
and if that means that we don’t want to eat and it causes us to die, that doesn’t mean you can force us to eat
This is an illogical leap. You have gone from the very real right to life to the completely fictional "right to die" as if the former implies the latter.
It does not in any way.
Further, this woman is clearly mentally ill and not in command of her faculties.
“We have a right to life...”
We’re talking about a mental disease. She was given due process as is her right and the due process determined that the woman was unable to make proper decisions for herself due to this disease. The judge erred on the side of life.
This has nothing to do with individual liberty and everything to do with mental illness.
I don't have much sympathy for this type of "illness". This woman has every advantage - a very large, beautiful home in a safe place. A husband and family and she must have one hell of a strong body to take the abuse she gives it.
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.