Court approves force feeding.

Azwaldo55

Valmont wrote: »

She is rational, articulate, and intelligent, as the court rightly determined. Just because you don't understand why she is doing what she is doing doesn't mean she's 'nuts' and you should force a tube down her throat. She has also said she does not want to be force-fed - a practice which many human rights organisations have determined as torture.

I don't want or care to understand why she is doing what she is doing.
You are turning logic on its head if you think feeding a woman with a tube to keep her alive is torture.
That's the most stupid thing I have ever heard.
Doctors and nurses are supposed to stand aside and let this idiot starve herself to death?
Mind boggling nonsense!:mad:

Hotale.com

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what? Who cares what she thinks. The doctor's job is to keep her alive. End of.

The doctor's job is to care for her and respect any decisions she, or her family, make.

EyeSight

suicide_circus wrote: »

And there for has been judged to be incompetent to make her own decisions on the matter

because she has a mental illness. Like i said, i support the right to die but when one is of sound mind to make that decision.
If this was someone in your family, who didn't think staving herself would kill her, would you say "fair enough, your choice"?

If she overcomes he illness and decides to kill herself i believe that is her decision. I severely doubt she would chose starvation as a method to kill herself

Hotale.com

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Doctors and nurses are supposed to stand aside and let this idiot starve herself to death?
Mind boggling nonsense!:mad:

Do you realise how ignorant you sound?

Azwaldo55

Valmont wrote: »

Could you explain why I have the right to refuse life-saving heart surgery then?

Oh spare me! Feeding a patient and life saving heart surgery are obviously two different things. Sticking a tube down her throat and opening up a patients chest are universes apart.

Azwaldo55

Hotale.com wrote: »

Do you realise how ignorant you sound?

Saving a woman's life is ignorance? Black is white and white is black!

Azwaldo55

Hotale.com wrote: »

The doctor's job is to care for her and respect any decisions she, or her family, make.

Nonsense.

Hotale.com

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Saving a woman's life is ignorance? Black is white and white is black!

You called someone mentally ill an "idiot". Do you also believe depressed people are just self-absorbed and overly-sensitive, and should be able to just snap out of their plight because there's people worse off than them?

Hotale.com

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Nonsense.

Where's the nonsense?

Azwaldo55

Hotale.com wrote: »

You called someone mentally ill an "idiot". Do you also believe depressed people are just self-absorbed and overly-sensitive, and should be able to just snap out of their plight because there's people worse off than them?

So she should be allowed to starve to death while we wait for her to snap out of it?

Hotale.com

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So she should be allowed to starve to death while we wait for her to snap out of it?

As sad as the situation is, it's her life, and it's her choice.

She won't snap out of it without some serious psychiatric aid.

EyeSight

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So she should be allowed to starve to death while we wait for her to snap out of it?

such sensationalism in this thread!
Do you really think they're just strapping her down with a tube in her mouth and leaving her rot away? She will obviously be getting treatment for her condition!

After she overcomes her condition i am sure she will be happy at this action. Otherwise she is free to commit suicide - I doubt she will chose starvation

My name is URL

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I would have thought that anorexia nervosa led to irrational thought processes rather than stupidity.

Putting your hand in the fire = stupid.

Deliberate starvation to the point of death due to a distorted body image = irrational.

I guess it boils down to whether she is choosing outright to die or choosing just not to eat because of her body dysmorphia.

It's not as if courts are forcing everyone with anorexia to be force fed. This girl is virtually on her deathbed, and if there's any chance that doctors can save her then they should attempt to do so through all legal means.

It's an impossibly complex situation in any case.

Manach

My own uninformed 2c, but people should have a degree of autonomy over their own bodies, and unless there is overwhelming psychiatric evaluation otherwise then it is not the state's role to intervene. There is a slippery slope argument where the life decisions that can be capablible made by adults will be reduced as state uses precedence to limit (even awful options as in this case) personal choices.

Turtwig

Lots of medical procedures can be tortuous. It's always a stickler ethically when people don't want them to be carried out. But when their life is at stake it puts doctors in an impossible position. Most people are intelligent and articulate, on somethings, but not everything - and that's the problem. This woman has an illness that tells her she doesn't need to eat. She'll be fine. The problem is she won't be. She'll die. She might not even have suicidal intent. Yes, I'm saying that her illness has possibly made her very naive about one little minutiae.

I don't like force feeding, but then again I'm uncomfortable with harsh measures to prevent people from committing suicide when that's their wish. I like the idea of people have autonomy over their own body but like everything in life there's going to be moments where that's not so obvious. This is one of those - and from little I can discern from a vague third hand account, I think the doctors made the right call.

The judges justification seems odd though. :P

Oryx

So if someone jumps off a bridge no one should try to save them?

This girl however is not trying to die. She is using food as a method of control in because she is not mentally stable. She is in denial that she is killing herself or doesn't care. To not force feed her is imo wrong. It is an essential part of the treatment of her mental illness.

Hazys

Force feeding is no joke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ACE-BBPRs

I dont know if thats a typical strategy or only used in Guantánamo but it looks horrific and it would defly fcuk with your mental health if this happened on a daily basis.

shopaholic01

My name is URL wrote: »

I guess it boils down to whether she is choosing outright to die or choosing just not to eat because of her body dysmorphia.

It's not as if courts are forcing everyone with anorexia to be force fed. This girl is virtually on her deathbed, and if there's any chance that doctors can save her then they should attempt to do so through all legal means.

It's an impossibly complex situation in any case.

For what it's worth, I agree that medical intervention is necessary. I just think it's unfair to say that she is ill because of her own stupidity.

Azwaldo55

Hotale.com wrote: »

As sad as the situation is, it's her life, and it's her choice.

She won't snap out of it without some serious psychiatric aid.

How can she get psychiatric aid if she dies from starvation?

Azwaldo55

Hazys wrote: »

Force feeding is no joke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ACE-BBPRs

I dont know if thats a typical strategy or only used in Guantánamo but it looks horrific and it would defly fcuk with your mental health if this happened on a daily basis.

This 7 year old doesn't seem to mind.

hatrickpatrick

The bottom line here is that adults should have full bodily autonomy. As sad as this situation is, the implications of removing that autonomy in this case are wide reaching. It's the same argument I use for drugs - very sad if somebody destroys themselves, but at the end of the day they own their own body 100% and should have complete control over it.

Anita Blow

Manach wrote: »

My own uninformed 2c, but people should have a degree of autonomy over their own bodies, and unless there is overwhelming psychiatric evaluation otherwise then it is not the state's role to intervene. There is a slippery slope argument where the life decisions that can be capablible made by adults will be reduced as state uses precedence to limit (even awful options as in this case) personal choices.

People do have autonomy over their bodies, if they are mentally capable of understanding what is wrong with them and the consequences of their condition/treatment options. If a person is deemed by psychiatric services not to have capacity to understand this & make decisions, then it falls to next-of-kin and the medical team to make the decision in the patient's best interests.

I think the difficulty a lot of people have with this is their concept of what mental illness is. A person can be perfectly intelligent, articulate & otherwise normal and still lack insight into what is wrong with them. These situations are rarely black and white, but instead is very grey.

Lightbulb Sun

Hotale.com wrote: »

As sad as the situation is, it's her life, and it's her choice.

She won't snap out of it without some serious psychiatric aid.

And in the meantime she needs to be kept alive. A lot of speculation here about suicide, with no mention in the article. It being anorexia, it's more likely that is dictating her lack of eating, not a wish to die.

JeffKenna

We have to protect people in our society with metal illness. In this case she must be fed.

Azwaldo55

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bottom line here is that adults should have full bodily autonomy. As sad as this situation is, the implications of removing that autonomy in this case are wide reaching. It's the same argument I use for drugs - very sad if somebody destroys themselves, but at the end of the day they own their own body 100% and should have complete control over it.

Junkies need to rob to feed their habit which usually involves violence against innocent people to cough up money. So no people shouldn't have autonomy to be drug users either.

hatrickpatrick

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Junkies need to rob to feed their habit which usually involves violence against innocent people to cough up money. So no people shouldn't have autonomy to be drug users either.

Those are separate issues. Those who can take drugs without committing crime should be allowed to do so in peace. If drug use by an individual is found to be the cause of crime, then they should be banned from doing so.

Azwaldo55

Anita Blow wrote: »

People do have autonomy over their bodies, if they are mentally capable of understanding what is wrong with them and the consequences of their condition/treatment options. If a person is deemed by psychiatric services not to have capacity to understand this & make decisions, then it falls to next-of-kin and the medical team to make the decision in the patient's best interests.

I think the difficulty a lot of people have with this is their concept of what mental illness is. A person can be perfectly intelligent, articulate & otherwise normal and still lack insight into what is wrong with them. These situations are rarely black and white, but instead is very grey.

Better safe than sorry. Feed her and keep her alive. Some of the posters on this thread would be thrilled if she died apparently. Bizarre is not the word.

Turtwig

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bottom line here is that adults should have full bodily autonomy. As sad as this situation is, the implications of removing that autonomy in this case are wide reaching. It's the same argument I use for drugs - very sad if somebody destroys themselves, but at the end of the day they own their own body 100% and should have complete control over it.

But suppose a parasite was to infest their brain and take over some of their bodily controls would you say they own their own body?

Parasite here could easily be a metaphor for some mental illnesses.

To put it another angle on this:
Cancer patients own their own body, but suppose a person had cancer in the brain, the only symptom of which is the intent to self harm, does that mean that if they want to commit self harm we should let them?

REXER

But what about Bobby?
Won't somebody think about Bobby?

Azwaldo55

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Those are separate issues. Those who can take drugs without committing crime should be allowed to do so in peace. If drug use by an individual is found to be the cause of crime, then they should be banned from doing so.

On Planet Earth, junkies lose their minds, then lose their jobs, become unemployable, sell everything they have and burn through all their savings before ending up homeless and then start stealing to feed their habits. Anyone who chooses to kill themselves with drugs has lost their mind and should be committed. The same way an anorexic who is dying should have their autonomy taken from them.

EyeSight

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bottom line here is that adults should have full bodily autonomy. As sad as this situation is, the implications of removing that autonomy in this case are wide reaching. It's the same argument I use for drugs - very sad if somebody destroys themselves, but at the end of the day they own their own body 100% and should have complete control over it.

when they are of sound mind

My name is URL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The bottom line here is that adults should have full bodily autonomy. As sad as this situation is, the implications of removing that autonomy in this case are wide reaching. It's the same argument I use for drugs - very sad if somebody destroys themselves, but at the end of the day they own their own body 100% and should have complete control over it.

The right to bodily integrity is actually something that Irish courts have acknowledged as existent.

Funnily enough that was due to a case brought against the state regarding water fluoridation... and you'd rarely have so many people come out in opposition to water fluoridation without being classed as loonies and quacks.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1965/1.html

It's unfortunate that debate on the subject of bodily integrity seems dominated by the more extreme stories that emerge in which it may apply.

end of the road

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

We don't need to understand her reasons to do so.

of course we need to understand her reasons, how can you get to the route of the problem otherwise

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

We simply stop her from killing herself and save her life.

that all? alone its not going to work.

end of the road

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

So what? Who cares what she thinks.

who cares what you think? your opinion is wrong, yeah, 2 can play that game

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The doctor's job is to keep her alive. End of.

and your supporting and condoning a form of torture "end of" again i can play this nonsense as well

Oryx

end of the road wrote: »

who cares what you think? your opinion is wrong, yeah, 2 can play that game



and your supporting and condoning a form of torture "end of" again i can play this nonsense as well

Doctors don't torture they treat.

Bongalongherb

Well, doctors and nurses made an oath to help heal folk, and as such will never allow a person to die in any case, even if they have to force-feed a person.

The Oath of Hippocrates... Source: http://www.irishcatholicdoctors.com/HippocraticOath.htm

Sounds a tad too religious though.

Turtwig

Hippocrates oath is kind of obsolete these days.

end of the road

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I don't want or care to understand why she is doing what she is doing.

oh dear jesus, if you don't try understand why somebody does something then theres no chance of helping them realize they have a problem, let me guess, you probably believe force feeding her will cure her and she will be perfect again?

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You are turning logic on its head if you think feeding a woman with a tube to keep her alive is torture.

i'd take the word of human rights organizations frankly, whether its stupid or not is irrelevant, they know what they are talking about.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

That's the most stupid thing I have ever heard.

doesn't matter, the human rights organizations say its a form of torture, many agree.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

this idiot

lovely, what a nice way to describe someone who has a serious problem and who needs probably long term help, well done, showed yourself up right there.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Mind boggling nonsense!

absolutely, describing someone who has a problem as an idiot is certainly Mind boggling nonsense

Bongalongherb

Turtwig wrote: »

Hippocrates oath is kind of obsolete these days.

Kind of ? in what way ?.

end of the road

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Junkies need to rob to feed their habit which usually involves violence against innocent people to cough up money. So no people shouldn't have autonomy to be drug users either.

yes they should, they rob to get the money to pay the dealers, as unfortunate as it is they either rob and pay up or get beaten or killed, it will continue while the illegal drugs are illegal

Barely There

If someone is brought into hospital from a suicide attempt, should doctors refuse to treat them?

Course not, that would be ridiculous.

This woman has a hopefully temporary illness. Allowing her to kill herself would be wrong.

end of the road

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Better safe than sorry.

the statement used to justify men being discriminated against because of "da PDOS"

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Some of the posters on this thread would be thrilled if she died apparently.

sensationalist tripe

end of the road

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

On Planet Earth, junkies lose their minds, then lose their jobs, become unemployable, sell everything they have and burn through all their savings before ending up homeless and then start stealing to feed their habits. Anyone who chooses to kill themselves with drugs has lost their mind and should be committed. The same way an anorexic who is dying should have their autonomy taken from them.

any country whare drug addicts have been successfully "commited" and they have stayed clean? would you perscribe the same thing for alcoholics?

Valmont

Unfortunately for some, the argument that this young woman is suffering from a 'mental' disease which determines her to experience an irrational compulsion to starve herself and is thus worthy of force-feeding doesn't hold up -- especially when we consider recent comments by a leading expert in the field of eating disorders, Emeritus Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Bryan Lask. Some time ago BBC Radio 4 had Professor Lask on to discuss anorexia nervosa; specifcally the case of Melanie Spooner, the young doctor who died from heart failure after losing a serious amount of weight from refusing to eat. Bryan Lask adamantly propounds the conventional, stock-and-trade, professional belief about mental illness which I'm sure you've heard before:

Bryan Lask's interview on BBC Radio 4 wrote:

And one of the myths that still persists is that people with anorexia choose to go on a diet, choose to remain the way they are, choose to have all these features and that’s just as nonsensical as saying someone with pneumonia chooses to have a fever, to be short of breath, to cough and to be in pain when they breathe - none of that’s a choice and none of what happens in anorexia is a choice. So trying to convince someone with anorexia that they are thin not fat, that they should eat, all those things, it doesn’t work because it’s like trying to tell someone with pneumonia don’t cough, don’t have a fever. Their illness is a very manipulative and controlling illness but they are not manipulative or controlling.

Professor Lask profoundly contradicts himself in the very next breath, and in doing so unwittingly exposes the entire view of anorexia as a disease worthy of forced treatment as a total and utter illogical pile of self-serving nonsense:

Bryan Lask's interview wrote:

One of the most important types of therapy is motivational therapy, where we work on the patients’ motivation to help them to gradually reverse the balance - the balance is so much in favour of the illness, the pros of the illness, and we try and help them work towards the cons outweighing the pros rather than pros outweighing the cons.

In helping a 'patient' see that the cons of not eating are greater than the pros, Lask is implicitly accepting that the therapy is only successful if the 'patient' can be convinced of their own volition to resume eating and to cease self-starvation. By referring to a list of pros and cons he is implicitly acknowledging that each 'anorexic' has weighed up the pros and cons and has decided to self-starve. Choice, it seems, is nothing to with the problem, but everything to do with the solution. Logic dictates that we cannot have it both ways. Lask says you can't tell them that they are thin and that they should eat but that is exactly what motivational therapy involves, albeit in a structured manner and delivered by a professional therapist.

And if you still aren't convinced, motivational therapy is explicitly about affirming an individual's ability to choose. Let's take this common definition of motivational therapy:

Motivational Therapy wrote:

1. MI is a particular kind of conversation about change (counseling, therapy, consultation)
method of communication)
2. MI is collaborative (person centered, partnership, honors autonomy,not expert
recipient)
3. MI is evocative (seeks to call forth the person’s own motivation and commitment)

Somehow I don't think this would work for pneumonia or diabetes but we don't lock those people up and ram tubes into them against their will.

Azwaldo55

Valmont wrote: »

Unfortunately for some, the argument that this young woman is suffering from a 'mental' disease which determines her to experience an irrational compulsion to starve herself and is thus worthy of force-feeding doesn't hold up -- especially when we consider recent comments by a leading expert in the field of eating disorders, Emeritus Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Bryan Lask. Some time ago BBC Radio 4 had Professor Lask on to discuss anorexia nervosa; specifcally the case of Melanie Spooner, the young doctor who died from heart failure after losing a serious amount of weight from refusing to eat. Bryan Lask adamantly propounds the conventional, stock-and-trade, professional belief about mental illness which I'm sure you've heard before:



Professor Lask profoundly contradicts himself in the very next breath, and in doing so unwittingly exposes the entire view of anorexia as a disease worthy of forced treatment as a total and utter illogical pile of self-serving nonsense:



In helping a 'patient' see that the cons of not eating are greater than the pros, Lask is implicitly accepting that the therapy is only successful if the 'patient' can be convinced of their own volition to resume eating and to cease self-starvation. By referring to a list of pros and cons he is implicitly acknowledging that each 'anorexic' has weighed up the pros and cons and has decided to self-starve. Choice, it seems, is nothing to with the problem, but everything to do with the solution. Logic dictates that we cannot have it both ways. Lask says you can't tell them that they are thin and that they should eat but that is exactly what motivational therapy involves, albeit in a structured manner and delivered by a professional therapist.

And if you still aren't convinced, motivational therapy is explicitly about affirming an individual's ability to choose. Let's take this common definition of motivational therapy:



Somehow I don't think this would work for pneumonia or diabetes but we don't lock those people up and ram tubes into them against their will.

You seem to be desperate that this woman dies. It's quite bizarre.

end of the road

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You seem to be desperate that this woman dies. It's quite bizarre.

grow up for jesus sake

shruikan2553

So if a person had depression and tried to kill themselves it's their own choice and we shouldnt try to stop it?

Valmont

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So if a person had depression and tried to kill themselves it's their own choice and we shouldnt try to stop it?

It is their own choice as it's their life. I try to stop people all the time with my work with the Samaritans but I stop trying to stop them when it involves locking them up and 'treating' them against their express wishes. The right to end one's life is sacrosanct in my opinion, even if I hope nobody does it and that someone helps them to choose otherwise.

Derrydoc

This lady does not have the ability to make rational choices about her eating and hence ending her life, that is the nature of her mental illness. There is no controversy over the status of Anorexia Nervosa as a mental illness, it is also a physical illness the nutrient starved brain does not function properly this further reinforces the patterns of anorexic thinking.
Anorexia is a very difficult condition to treat it may take months or years of therapy, force feeding a patient is a last resort to keep them alive long enough for the appropriate therapy to be delivered.

diveout

Valmont wrote: »

It is their own choice as it's their life. I try to stop people all the time with my work with the Samaritans but I stop trying to stop them when it involves locking them up and 'treating' them against their express wishes. The right to end one's life is sacrosanct in my opinion, even if I hope nobody does it and that someone helps them to choose otherwise.

It perplexes me how so many have sympathy for people with long term physical illnesses to seek assistance in places like Switzerland, or mercy killings or euthanasia, but once the long term illness is psychological or psyhciatric....oh no.... they must be stopped.