Court approves force feeding.

Hotale.com · 28-05-2014 08:15PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:16PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:16PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:16PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:17PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:17PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:20PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:22PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:23PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:24PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:27PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:28PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:28PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:30PM

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

Azwaldo55 · 28-05-2014 08:30PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:32PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:32PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:32PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:34PM

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

Azwaldo55 · 28-05-2014 08:38PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:40PM

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 · 28-05-2014 08:50PM

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 · 28-05-2014 09:02PM

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 · 28-05-2014 09:06PM

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 · 28-05-2014 09:07PM

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 · 28-05-2014 09:19PM

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 · 28-05-2014 09:21PM

Hippocrates oath is kind of obsolete these days.

end of the road · 28-05-2014 09:21PM

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 · 28-05-2014 09:22PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Hippocrates oath is kind of obsolete these days.

Kind of ? in what way ?.

end of the road · 28-05-2014 09:32PM

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

Court approves force feeding.

Comments