Right-to-food fight

S.A.M.

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
Patient loses right-to-food fight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5257252.stm

A seriously ill man has lost the last stage of his legal fight to insist on his right to food in the final stages of his life.The General Medical Council had said doctors had to be able to act in the patient's best interests.

Mr Burke, 46, has cerebellar ataxia - an umbrella term for nervous system disorders that cause a lack of co-ordination, but do not affect mental faculties. He fears that artificial nutrition - which is classed as a form of treatment by the GMC - could be stopped against his wishes when he cannot talk.

But in a written judgement released last week, the court said it did not accept there was a "real and imminent" threat that artificial nutrition and hydration would be withdrawn when he was in the final stages of his illness.

It also said it was satisfied UK law was in favour of prolonging life wherever possible.

The court added that, where a patient was not able to communicate their wishes, artificial nutrition should continue as long as it prolonged life - but that there were circumstances where it could hasten death.

So it said it was impossible to set rules as to what was in a patient's best interests.


Any thoughts on this? Could such a judgement be misused? What else could the court have done?
 
I don't know of any cases where Doctors have decided to allow a patient to starve to death, rather they do what is neccessary to keep them alive until they are dead or brain dead or machine is switched off if that is what is left.

Thus I don't think it was a matter that needed to go to court but I understand his fears. We all feel vulnerable when we lose the ability to communicate our wishes, but while not perfect the NHS generally don't murder patients or deliberately let them suffer.

If the patient wasn't fed it is more liekly to be neglect than deliberate. I missed a feed when in hospital once as the dinner lady decided me and everyone on my ward was well enough to walk to the dining room. She was unaware of the medical conditions that kept us confined to our beds unless assisted. talk about putting power over life and death in hands of little Hitlers.

Anyway back on topic, I don't think the case needed to go to court. He merely needed to mention his wishes to his doctors and closest relatives.
 
If the patient, in a cognizant and capable frame of mind, has made his wishes known, they should be carried out. I think a doctor's job should be to ease suffering, not prolong life at all costs, especially when that life has made its wishes known. Based on personal experience, the doctor doesn't always know what's best. Provided the patient is fully aware of things, the patient should always have the final say in such matters.
 
On a personal note, myself and my mother nursed my gran at home when in her last months of cancer. At the tend she could not talk, I am not sure re her mental state. She could not communicate any understanding. When we fed her, she tried to swallow but would cough and choke, but still tried to consume. Thus while offered the chance by doctors to ease her sufferring and end her pain by giving her a lethal dose of methadone, we refrained as my Gran was clearly herself still trying to 'hang on' demonstrated by the fact she was not rejecting food but trying to eat it despite her obvious disomfort. So we carried on. One night she did reject her food, that night she died, with my mom by her side and relatively peacefully. No intervention needed.


Docs are more likely to use that method of ending sufferring than allowing a patient to starve to death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top