Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dying can be denied food
The Sun (UK) ^ | July 28, 2005 | PETE BELL

Posted on 07/28/2005 4:33:39 PM PDT by 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."

(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britain; dehydration; disability; humanrights; livingwill; madness; medicine; nationalhealth; socialistutopia; starvation
Food and water should NOT be classified as medical treatment. They MUST be classified as "ordinary care." Otherwise as soon as you can't communicate --- even if you have it in writing that you would want to be fed --- the managed-death people will see that you die quickly (or not-so-quickly) and badly.
1 posted on 07/28/2005 4:33:39 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: don-o; GloriaJane; k2blader; Saundra Duffy; Slump Tester; Halls; Vicomte13; trustandobey; ...

ping


2 posted on 07/28/2005 4:41:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Lex iniusta, lex nulla,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

When did the patient start dying... doctor

Why as soon as we denied her food and water..the patiend appeared to 'have had it'

Before care begins to eat into profits...move em on out

imo


3 posted on 07/28/2005 4:42:01 PM PDT by joesnuffy (The state always has solutions to the problems it creates...more freedom will never be a solution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

When the UK's transition to total socialism is complete, everyone will be denied food.


4 posted on 07/28/2005 4:42:23 PM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Let me see if I have this right:


If you commit murder or blow people up, you go to prison for the rest of your life and they feed you but:


If you get old and sick, they can starve you to death.


sounds like a liberal policy to me.


5 posted on 07/28/2005 4:42:45 PM PDT by Lokibob (All typos and spelling errors are mine and copyrighted!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Does this mean I won't get a popsicle after I get my blood drawn??????????? (sarcasm)

Last time I checked dying people are hungry too...


6 posted on 07/28/2005 4:42:51 PM PDT by CollegeRepublicanNU (Currently Attending The Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift; 8mmMauser; floriduh voter

ping


7 posted on 07/28/2005 4:43:25 PM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< OurFlorida.true.ws Impeach Judge Greer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

This isn't limited to the UK...they're doing it right here in the U.S.A.


8 posted on 07/28/2005 4:45:13 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
doctors do have the power to withdraw food and drink from terminally ill patients - even if it is against their wishes.

Do they have the right to prevent patients from moving to a care facility (home maybe) that would provide food and water?

9 posted on 07/28/2005 4:45:58 PM PDT by delacoert (imperat animus corpori, et paretur statim: imperat animus sibi, et resistitur. -AUGUSTINI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I recall the same argument ("food and water is medical treatment") surface during the Terri Schiavo travesty..


10 posted on 07/28/2005 4:47:34 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
An Interesting way to think about it is to argue that life itself is a fatal disease, and that we all start dying of it from the day that we are born.

Good days, bad days, up curve, down curve, it all goes the same way, and we had better watch it right now because this is what the libs want for you, right now.

Starvation, pure and simple. - Why not just withhold air?
11 posted on 07/28/2005 4:50:11 PM PDT by bill1952 ("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Mrs. Don-o

and the sheeple keep taking it and taking it and taking it....


13 posted on 07/28/2005 4:53:01 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite (islamofascism, like socialism must be eradicated from the face of this earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Makes me wonder how many people will die of other wise curable ills because now they well be afraid that if they do seek care, they might be starved to death.


14 posted on 07/28/2005 4:54:00 PM PDT by GloriaJane (http://music.download.com/gloriajane "Seems Like Our Press Has Turned Against Our Country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Stop feeding the prisoners, it only prolongs their suffering ...


15 posted on 07/28/2005 4:54:03 PM PDT by MrBambaLaMamba (Buy 'Allah' brand urinal cakes - If you can't kill the enemy at least you can piss on their god)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The way the ruling reads, if you're terminally ill (expected to expire in less than a year), even if you're able to talk, move your hands, etc, they can still decide to withhold food and water from you. (Not quite sure how this works, can they strap a patient down to prevent them from eating someone else's food?)

In reality, if you're unable to feed yourself, they have no obligation to provide intravenous food and water. A significant thing in a nation with state managed health care. I suppose if you could find a private doctor and pay them, you could continue to survive, but the state wouldn't be obligated, through their doctors, to feed and give you water.

I'm of the mind to believe that the English high court is reasonable in this judgment. Even if you desire life prolonging treatment, there has either got to be a public interest in doing so (IE you're going to recover) or the patient pays for the care.

Folks worried about this over there should push for private health care and choose methods of paying for that care.

I suppose I'll have to don my flame proof suit for pointing out the obvious here. And this is a separate issue than the Shivao case since there is, presumably, no outside source that wants to care for the gentleman when he is no longer able to do so himself.
16 posted on 07/28/2005 4:58:07 PM PDT by kingu (Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrBambaLaMamba
Stop feeding the prisoners, it only prolongs their suffering ...

Nahh, give death row prisoners some seeds and a few long planters, and a source of water. Their cell lights should be replaced with wide spectrum grow lights. If they grow the seeds right, they live. If they don't, well, no skin off my nose.
17 posted on 07/28/2005 5:00:03 PM PDT by kingu (Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tutstar
Pinged from Terri Dailies

Thanks

8mm

18 posted on 07/28/2005 5:03:38 PM PDT by 8mmMauser (www.ChristtheKingMaine.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kingu

So you 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?

A "yes" or "no" answer should suffice.


19 posted on 07/28/2005 5:04:27 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
So you 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? A "yes" or "no" answer should suffice.

Yes. Since I answered your loaded question, you can answer mine. Have you stopped beating up your family members? Yes or no will suffice.

Of course, we could debate the issue instead of resorting to infantile 'gotchas.'
20 posted on 07/28/2005 5:29:15 PM PDT by kingu (Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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


21 posted on 07/28/2005 5:36:17 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

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.

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.
22 posted on 07/28/2005 5:43:46 PM PDT by kingu (Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Image hosted by Photobucket.com End Stage Socialism...
23 posted on 07/28/2005 5:48:27 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
exactly what Terri Shavio episode was about, opening the door to this Pandora's Box!!

Why would anyone be surprised????

24 posted on 07/28/2005 5:59:57 PM PDT by SweetCaroline (Thank You GOD for watching over me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
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?
25 posted on 07/28/2005 6:00:49 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kingu
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.

26 posted on 07/28/2005 6:04:13 PM PDT by RightWhale (Substance is essentially the relationship of accidents to itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; kingu
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.

27 posted on 07/28/2005 6:26:09 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
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.
28 posted on 07/28/2005 6:26:57 PM PDT by kingu (Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
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.
29 posted on 07/28/2005 6:30:43 PM PDT by kingu (Draft Fmr Senator Fred Thompson for '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kingu
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"..

30 posted on 07/28/2005 6:45:07 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Deja vu, Terri??????


31 posted on 07/28/2005 6:48:01 PM PDT by eeriegeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
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.

32 posted on 07/28/2005 6:50:59 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: delacoert

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.


33 posted on 07/29/2005 4:57:31 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Lex iniusta, lex nulla,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

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.


34 posted on 07/29/2005 5:04:01 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson