Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Doctors. Above the law?
The Times reports here on a story about a patient "allowed to starve to death". Of course there's no bias in the media regarding this type of thing hence they phrase it as: "A doctor's decision to allow his patient to starve has been challenged". Instead of: "A doctor's decision to starve his patient to death has been challenged". It makes it sound like some kind of great right, the right to be allowed to starve to death; for some strange reason, this "right" fails to make it into any of the documents of freedom posted on this site. I don't seem to recall it mentioned in other documents of "rights" either.
The story tells us there was a court order in place preventing precisely this kind of thing and nutrition and hydration were to be administered if "medically possible" a bureaucratic type phrase. Amazingly the doctor apparently threatened to have the concerned family arrested; well if, as it appears likely, (I don't believe the family are making all this up) the court order has been breached then he's the one that should be straight off to jail for contempt of court and he can stay there until his trial.
At the end of the day, advances in medical treatment do mean that we face choices about when, and if treatment should be withdrawn, but I don't intend to address those arguments today.
Now obviously I'm not aware of the full prognosis, but the patient appeared to have been both conscious and aware of her surroundings. I suggest that there was no real inherent damage to vital life sustaining organs, otherwise withdrawral of oxygen and life support would have been sufficient. Now she may not have made a full recovery and at 91 well it's a good age, but where does it say the right to life lessens with age?
What does need to be clear especially to doctors and the medical "profession" is that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable and illegal, and it should carry severe punishment. The doctor is in a position of trust, at a time when a person is weak, it is not their job to "finish the patient off". Certainly not by slow and cruel starvation, even criminals by hanging had a quick death.
Doctors (in general) do a valuable job, but they administer to the physical. They can make judgements about physical treatment, should we perform the transplant? Can the arm be sewn back on? What they cannot judge is whether or not a persons life is worth leading. They should have no power to even make decisions on food and nurishment except as to how it is to be given.
The medical "profession" needs to face reality; yes they perform a vital role, but it isn't an unlimited role. They must do the best they can for the patient physically and mentally (where mental health issues are involved), but that is their limit. After that they can do no more, their role is over. The decisions which come after must be taken within the legal framework, by the patient and their family.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
The story tells us there was a court order in place preventing precisely this kind of thing and nutrition and hydration were to be administered if "medically possible" a bureaucratic type phrase. Amazingly the doctor apparently threatened to have the concerned family arrested; well if, as it appears likely, (I don't believe the family are making all this up) the court order has been breached then he's the one that should be straight off to jail for contempt of court and he can stay there until his trial.
At the end of the day, advances in medical treatment do mean that we face choices about when, and if treatment should be withdrawn, but I don't intend to address those arguments today.
Now obviously I'm not aware of the full prognosis, but the patient appeared to have been both conscious and aware of her surroundings. I suggest that there was no real inherent damage to vital life sustaining organs, otherwise withdrawral of oxygen and life support would have been sufficient. Now she may not have made a full recovery and at 91 well it's a good age, but where does it say the right to life lessens with age?
What does need to be clear especially to doctors and the medical "profession" is that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable and illegal, and it should carry severe punishment. The doctor is in a position of trust, at a time when a person is weak, it is not their job to "finish the patient off". Certainly not by slow and cruel starvation, even criminals by hanging had a quick death.
Doctors (in general) do a valuable job, but they administer to the physical. They can make judgements about physical treatment, should we perform the transplant? Can the arm be sewn back on? What they cannot judge is whether or not a persons life is worth leading. They should have no power to even make decisions on food and nurishment except as to how it is to be given.
The medical "profession" needs to face reality; yes they perform a vital role, but it isn't an unlimited role. They must do the best they can for the patient physically and mentally (where mental health issues are involved), but that is their limit. After that they can do no more, their role is over. The decisions which come after must be taken within the legal framework, by the patient and their family.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
