WTF Woman order by court to undergo surgery for cancer

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
33,922
8,399
473
38
Oz
Marklar
25,442.40₥
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7769243/Cancer-patient-forced-by-judge-to-have-surgery.html

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.
She had previously agreed to surgery, only to change her mind and repeatedly refuse to turn up for medical appointments, claiming a phobia of hospitals and needles.
Last night Liz Sayce, chief executive of Radar, the disability network, said: "The right to refuse treatment is a cornerstone of human rights and medical ethics, but so too is the duty of care.
"The head states that saving the woman's life is right; the heart recoils at the thought of deceiving and compelling her into undergoing a procedure which she does not want."
She said it would be difficult to deny that the operation was in the woman's best interest but force would only be justified if it was established beyond doubt that the patient could not comprehend that without it she would die.
"Society, however, must be careful to treat every case individually, and ensure that this case provides no precedent for overriding the consent of people with learning disabilities in future." Yvonne Hossack, a solicitor who campaigns for elderly and vulnerable people, said: "It seems to me that – to force an operation on someone against their will – it's questionable whether it's in their best interests. Many people who have cancer do make the choice that they don't want invasive surgery."
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.
Unbelievable. Where does government get the right to enforce on people like this?
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
Uhm.....she has severe mental defects and lacks the ability to make medical decisions. Would you object if somebody in a coma had nobody to make decisions for them and doctors or the government decided?
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
However I think it might be nice to through it out there and say perhaps the NHS should be more fascist - why bother wasting money on people who cannot be arsed etc.? Fuckem.
 

polo

Flaccid Member
Aug 1, 2007
7,456
26
0
Marklar
0.00₥
they're using the mental health act - which requires a psychiatrist to recommend action.

that's pretty fair as it's non-governmental. also, she could be a risk to other patients at the moment. this is perhaps a sufficient excuse to put her on diazapam.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
they're using the mental health act - which requires a psychiatrist to recommend action.

that's pretty fair as it's non-governmental. also, she could be a risk to other patients at the moment. this is perhaps a sufficient excuse to put her on diazapam.
But it sounds like she's at home now. She wouldn't be a bother to other patients right now because she isn't around other patients.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,365
430
41
42
Austin
Marklar
663.49₥
Mentally incompetent people cannot be left to care for themselves. It would be cruel and unusual since they would inevitably suffer needlessly. I am fine with this.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,365
430
41
42
Austin
Marklar
663.49₥
Most people have 4% neanderthal genes (except Italians, who have at least 37%). Black people have no neanderthal genes. Kill anyone who isn't black if we are to have a chance at survival.
 

shamwow

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
66,888
709
41
Marklar
0.40₥
We're talking about keeping someone alive, and insanity and dying aren't the same thing. I agree, however, that the abolition of insane asylums didn't help anyone.
you just said this though: Mentally incompetent people cannot be left to care for themselves

if you're insane and living on the streets you could be dead sooner than this lady on any given day
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,140
41
Brandon, FL
Marklar
36,129.62₥
Uhm.....she has severe mental defects and lacks the ability to make medical decisions. Would you object if somebody in a coma had nobody to make decisions for them and doctors or the government decided?
How do you equate learning difficulties with Severe Mental Defects?

I see nothing in there that says she's mental incompetent.