Court approves force feeding.

CB19Kevo

I think in no circumstance should this be used,Mental disorder or otherwise i just cant agree with it.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0528/620211-court-anorexia/

SEPT 23 1989

better force fed then dead

Alf. A. Male

The court also heard that she was capable of understanding information and communicating her wishes but was incapable of *weighing* up the information.

:pac:

Slicemeister

Why couldn't the family make this decision?

Valetta

I think it's fair enough.

Some people need to be protected from their own stupidity.

Alf. A. Male

Slicemeister wrote: »

Why couldn't the family make this decision?

How would it be their decision to make? She's 26

shopaholic01

Valetta wrote: »

I think it's fair enough.

Some people need to be protected from their own stupidity.

I don't think a psychological disorder stems from stupidity.

Red Kev

The woman is essentially committing suicide over a long period of time, and the doctors and courts are trying to prevent this.

Anorexia and Bulmia are complicated psychological disorders, they can be cured/healed and in the meantime it's only right that the person is kept alive.

I know two people who suffered sever anorexia, both when they were in their late teens. One is now in her 40's and has been perfectly physically and mentally happy for 25 years, the other in 30, still suffers bouts of bulmia but is generally happy out. Both of these people were force fed at one point or another, both are alive and glad to be so.

The woman needs psychological counselling, it's a long, possibly life long process, but she can only start this if she is alive and healthy.

I think they are right to force feed her, no matter how bad it sounds on paper.

Sky King

Valetta wrote: »

I think it's fair enough.

Some people need to be protected from their own stupidity.

I hope you are never stupid enough to have a mental illness so.

whupdedo

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

better force fed then dead

Really ? Where does it stop,will she be force fed for the rest of her life, should she be allowed to die if that is what she wants, mentally capable or not

SEPT 23 1989

whupdedo wrote: »

Really ? Where does it stop,will she be force fed for the rest of her life, should she be allowed to die if that is what she wants, mentally capable or not

her state of mind might improve

Custardpi

whupdedo wrote: »

Really ? Where does it stop,will she be force fed for the rest of her life, should she be allowed to die if that is what she wants, mentally capable or not

There's no evidence that she wants to die however, there usually isn't in these cases. Rather she believes that she needs to get slimmer and that the doctors are "overfeeding" her. She simply does not grasp the level of danger she is putting herself in, due to the nature of her mental illness.

P_1

whupdedo wrote: »

Really ? Where does it stop,will she be force fed for the rest of her life, should she be allowed to die if that is what she wants, mentally capable or not

Trouble is that the Supreme Court recently found that the individual has no right to die in Ireland.

Hotale.com

P_1 wrote: »

Trouble is that the Supreme Court recently found that the individual has no right to die in Ireland.

That's a bit of a ridiculous judgment.


People shouldn't feel the need to exercise their right to die, but to suggest people don't have a right to die doesn't make much sense.

Custardpi

P_1 wrote: »

Trouble is that the Supreme Court recently found that the individual has no right to die in Ireland.

Sadly that's the current constitutional position yes, though I think there's a strong moral case for in some circumstances. Looks like it will take a constitutional amendment (which I assume would mean a referendum) to resolve the issue.

whupdedo

Hotale.com wrote: »

That's a bit of a ridiculous judgment.


People shouldn't feel the need to exercise their right to die, but to suggest people don't have a right to die doesn't make much sense.

That's just being pedantic, anyhow...

Reformed Character

CB19Kevo wrote: »

I think in no circumstance should this be used,Mental disorder or otherwise i just cant agree with it.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0528/620211-court-anorexia/

Well its not your loved one who is going to die without it.

P_1

Custardpi wrote: »

Sadly that's the current constitutional position yes, though I think there's a strong moral case for in some circumstances. Looks like it will take a constitutional amendment (which I assume would mean a referendum) to resolve the issue.

That'll make the abortion debate look like somebody asking if you'd want one sugar or two IMO. Yes it is something that needs to be legeslated for though

Xeyn

P_1 wrote: »

Trouble is that the Supreme Court recently found that the individual has no right to die in Ireland.

That has nothing to do with this issue though. This has to do with capacity to consent and autonomy.
Someone suffering with anorexia nervosa does not have capacity to make rational decisions about their health.
It's very very different from someone suffering with a terminal illness and wishing to die.

Overheal

Similar problem/solution with the Florida Baker Act, allowing doctors to confine patients against their normal free will because of the risk of self or external harm.

Sadly doesn't apply to schizophrenia when the patient is out of their mind but has the lucid sense to act normal in front of medical staff. True story.

Custardpi

P_1 wrote: »

That'll make the abortion debate look like somebody asking if you'd want one sugar or two IMO. Yes it is something that needs to be legeslated for though

I honestly don't think it would be nearly as bad as the abortion bunfights. I think most people would see a big difference between "murdering an innocent baby ye heathen b@stards!" (as the anti-choice crowd would say) & allowing a mentally competent adult in agonising, incurable pain to end their suffering.

fran17

america has been doing this for years so it has to be morally right...http://www.rt.com/usa/161100-guantanamo-rabbani-force-feeding/

Xeyn

fran17 wrote: »

america has been doing this for years so it has to be morally right...http://www.rt.com/usa/161100-guantanamo-rabbani-force-feeding/

To be fair that's a bit if a ridiculous comparison if you were being serious.

Valetta

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I don't think a psychological disorder stems from stupidity.

No, but it can lead to stupid actions. Hence my post.

P_1

Xeyn wrote: »

That has nothing to do with this issue though. This has to do with capacity to consent and autonomy.
Someone suffering with anorexia nervosa does not have capacity to make rational decisions about their health.
It's very very different from someone suffering with a terminal illness and wishing to die.

Ah I well know that, was more in reply to this point. However even though it is being done with the patients best interests at heart it is a little big brotherish

whupdedo wrote: »

Really ? Where does it stop,will she be force fed for the rest of her life, should she be allowed to die if that is what she wants, mentally capable or not

P_1

Custardpi wrote: »

I honestly don't think it would be nearly as bad as the abortion bunfights. I think most people would see a big difference between "murdering an innocent baby ye heathen b@stards!" (as the anti-choice crowd would say) & allowing a mentally competent adult in agonising, incurable pain to end their suffering.

Never discount the 'it's against god's will' brigade though.

shopaholic01

Valetta wrote: »

No, but it can lead to stupid actions. Hence my post.

So stupidity is a symptom?

Barely There

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

better force fed then dead

A tube that will save beats a trip to the grave.

My name is URL

shopaholic01 wrote: »

So stupidity is a symptom?

It might be insensitive, but it's pretty much true is it not?

shopaholic01

My name is URL wrote: »

It might be insensitive, but it's pretty much true is it not?

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.

EyeSight

fran17 wrote: »

america has been doing this for years so it has to be morally right...http://www.rt.com/usa/161100-guantanamo-rabbani-force-feeding/

Why do most threads here have stupid anti-america posts like this?
"Oh it's raining in Dublin? Well in america it's raining bullets and everyone is dying and the government is using it as an excuse to bomb Pakistan."

On topic, I think the woman in question will be thankful for this once she gets better. I believe in the right to die, but only if you're of sound mind to make that decision(I believe a terminally ill person to be of sound mind).

end of the road

Valetta wrote: »

I think it's fair enough.

Some people need to be protected from their own stupidity.

not good enough, this is not a case for the courts, for the family and doctors to discuss, but yeah, if the state interfearing in everyones problems makes you happy

Sulla Felix

If she hasn't indicated a wish to die, then I think the hospital is right to do everything they can to keep her alive.
I support the right to die but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Valmont

Ask most people if suicide is against the law and they will say of course not. Just don't tell your doctor you plan to do it by starving yourself or he'll lock you up and stick a tube down your throat 'for your own good'. Tolerance and respect for individual rights unfortunately means sometimes letting people do something to themselves that you feel is not good for them--whether it is suicide or self-starvation. Calling it a disease named 'anorexia' simply demeans this articulate and clearly intelligent young woman's choice to starve herself, as difficult as it is to accept that we might not understand her reasons for doing so.

EyeSight

Valmont wrote: »

Ask most people if suicide is against the law and they will say of course not. Just don't tell your doctor you plan to do it by starving yourself or he'll lock you up and stick a tube down your throat 'for your own good'.

But she isn't trying to commit suicide. She just thinks she doesn't need the food

end of the road

Valetta wrote: »

No, but it can lead to stupid actions. Hence my post.

well its not what you said

Anita Blow

Having worked with patients with mental disorders, I completely agree with the medical team who filed the request who have her best interests at heart. I myself have experienced patients who are outwardly normal, but due to their mental status have no insight into their condition and it's implications, which places their medical team in positions like this.
It's an incredibly grey area because when the person is otherwise intelligent and articulate it makes it very difficult to determine whether they have the capacity to make the decision.
The decision was by no means easy, I imagine. Nobody wants to have to force feed a person against their will, especially people in a caring role such as doctor/nurse but ultimately in this case, it seems that the ends justify the means.

suicide_circus

EyeSight wrote: »

But she isn't trying to commit suicide. She just thinks she doesn't need the food

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

Azwaldo55

CB19Kevo wrote: »

I think in no circumstance should this be used,Mental disorder or otherwise i just cant agree with it.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0528/620211-court-anorexia/

So you want the woman to starve to death then? :mad:

This is an impossibly hard one to call -

Someone I know went through this horrible mental illness, that could have killed them if they finally didn't turn around things by themselves. They now have an incredibly happy life, with so many things that just would not have happened otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised that, if it ever came to it and they had to be force-fed, they'd be thankfully for it now.

Azwaldo55

Valmont wrote: »

Ask most people if suicide is against the law and they will say of course not. Just don't tell your doctor you plan to do it by starving yourself or he'll lock you up and stick a tube down your throat 'for your own good'. Tolerance and respect for individual rights unfortunately means sometimes letting people do something to themselves that you feel is not good for them--whether it is suicide or self-starvation. Calling it a disease named 'anorexia' simply demeans this articulate and clearly intelligent young woman's choice to starve herself, as difficult as it is to accept that we might not understand her reasons for doing so.

Absolutely moronic comment. :mad:
Tolerance by backside!
Dying is obviously not for her own good or have you somehow missed
something?
The girl is quite clearly nuts and is starving herself to death.
We don't need to understand her reasons to do so.
We simply stop her from killing herself and save her life.
What good is served from letting her die?

Valmont

EyeSight wrote: »

But she isn't trying to commit suicide. She just thinks she doesn't need the food

The court has acknowledged that she is intelligent and articulate. Doctors have told her what will happen if she doesn't eat. If she is continuing to refuse to eat enough food I can't believe she isn't aware of or doesn't know the consequences of her actions. She isn't a drooling moron mental patient after all (a distinction some of you are happy to make if it means keeping her alive and making yourselves feel better).

hatrickpatrick

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

better force fed then dead

Says who? She is an adult, she has he right to make whatever choices she wants to about her own body.

Azwaldo55

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Says who? She is an adult, she has he right to make whatever choices she wants to about her own body.

Ridiculous nonsense.:mad:

Valmont

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The girl is quite clearly nuts

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 constituting torture.

The choice to live or die, to eat or not eat, should be down to an individual, not the HSE and its team of quacks.

Azwaldo55

Valmont wrote: »

The court has acknowledged that she is intelligent and articulate. Doctors have told her what will happen if she doesn't eat. If she is continuing to refuse to eat enough food I can't believe she isn't aware of or doesn't know the consequences of her actions. She isn't a drooling moron mental patient after all.

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

hatrickpatrick

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Ridiculous nonsense.:mad:

What a carefully thought out and well argued position. Bravo. :rolleyes:

Lightbulb Sun

Valmont wrote: »

The court has acknowledged that she is intelligent and articulate. Doctors have told her what will happen if she doesn't eat. If she is continuing to refuse to eat enough food I can't believe she isn't aware of or doesn't know the consequences of her actions. She isn't a drooling moron mental patient after all.

This is what anorexia does to a person. She can be intelligent and still make irrational decisions. These decisions are dictated by her psychiatric condition.

kylith

Her father told the court she was his eldest child and they had had an ongoing struggle with her condition.

He said the family had not been aware the situation had become so serious until they read a report in a newspaper.

Was no-one in her family in contact with her? I can't imagine not being aware that a member of my family is starving themselves to death.

Valmont

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

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

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

Hotale.com

kylith wrote: »

Was no-one in her family in contact with her? I can't imagine not being aware that a member of my family is starving themselves to death.

It's possible that the gravity of the situation just didn't hit them until they saw it on the newspaper.