British National Health service starved of humanity :: Euthanasia advocacy

« American MSM Ignores The "Iranian Regime Severs The Heads Of It's Citizens" Story And Instead Works Up A Frenzy Over A "Koran In The Toilet" Story! One Would Save Lives, The Other Costs Lives! (Updated) | Main | Why Insurgents Seek Victory by Suicide Bomb »

May 21, 2005

British National Health service starved of humanity

Topics: Euthanasia advocacy

Try, if you can, to picture this - a dying man has to sit in court and listen to lawyers argue over his right to food and water!

Ann Widdecombe in the TimesOnLine, writes, "The General Medical Council was contending before the court that decisions over treatment were for doctors, not patients, ignoring utterly the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act which allow patients to make living wills denying themselves treatment and which will bind any doctor who might take a different view. In other words, a patient may choose to die and his wishes will be paramount but if he chooses to live he is to be deemed an expensive impediment to the authority of the medical profession."

To make sure you have this in perspective, "we're not talking about some complicated medical procedure. We are not talking about assisting someone to breathe but merely refusing to starve him. Throughout the passage of the Mental Capacity Bill in Parliament the argument was put forward strongly in both Houses that it should be made explicit that food and fluid do not constitute treatment. The Government adamantly refused."

THIS WEEK Leslie Burke sat in court in a wheelchair and listened while lawyers argued whether he should be starved and dehydrated to death. The lawyers arguing in favour of the proposition were egged on by the Secretary of State for Health, who deemed it too expensive to feed and water the ailing patient.

The General Medical Council was contending before the court that decisions over treatment were for doctors, not patients, ignoring utterly the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act which allow patients to make living wills denying themselves treatment and which will bind any doctor who might take a different view. In other words, a patient may choose to die and his wishes will be paramount but if he chooses to live he is to be deemed an expensive impediment to the authority of the medical profession. Of course, the Hippocratic oath is no longer automatically required, so it is possible for these doctors to look Mr Burke in the eye and tell him that it is their right to starve him to death. More ...

Hat tip - mensch at Luciane Goldberg

Posted by Hyscience at May 21, 2005 6:15 PM

Articles Related to Euthanasia advocacy: