It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doctors allowed to 'force' cancer patient with a fear of hospitals to undergo surgery

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

But because she has learning difficulties which prevent her from coming to coherent conclusions, the judge ruled that doctors should be allowed to use force so they can operate.

The unusual case could have across-the-board implications when other patients refuse life-saving treatment.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is wrong is so many ways. So she's got a phobia of hospitals and needles, so do millions of other people.

Even if the woman isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, it still gives them NO right to force treatments upon her.

Does coming to a coherent conclusion mean agreeing with them??

What really strikes odd about this is that its not been but a month or so since at least 1 woman died of cancer because they refused her treatment. Now here they are going to gang up to force another to accept treatments. It just does not add up properly.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by SheaWolf]




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
It seems to me that her family should have some say in this matter - after all they would know her comfort zone better than anyone. If they agree they want her to have the surgery perhaps she can be sedated enough to get her thru the surgery. The doctors or a judge alone no right to force anything on anyone - period!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
If people don't want treatment than that is their right. but the words "learning difficulties" are very vague that could be practically anything.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
My mother battled cancer several times with success, but the last time it attacked her she refused treatments. The doctors didn't like it but it was HER choice and we as her family stood behind her right to do so.

Due to the horrors of chemo and other cancer treatments many people opt out. I myself would do so if cancer should be my lot in life.

No doctor or government should be allowed to do what they are planning to do to this woman. It is morally wrong.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
America = Human Rights Rapist.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthWizard
 


Yes, it truly could mean anything. In this article is actually sounds like they are using her reasons for refusal as the base of that judgment.

The implications are truly frightening.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by drkid
 


Read the article and view the photos. This is neither in the United States nor the Americas.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SheaWolf
 
I don't think this is wrong, although I can see where your coming from this lady is obviously unable to come to a reasonable conclusion one because of her refusal of treatment, and two because of her mental impairment. By the way I see place in the article that even mentions kimo. Also although it is true many people don't like hospitals or needles myself including, this does not mean they would refuse a life saving operation! And it does add up properly. Their not doing evil by saving her life. Also yes her reasoning for not wanting the operation is not logical, so she is not coherent by agreeing with them. If anyone disagrees call me out on it.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SheaWolf
 


I don't call this freedom in any way shape or form. Suzanne Somers had to leave the country to get treated in an unorthodox way for her cancer.

In the US if a doctor does not use radiation, chemotherapy or drugs to treat cancer the doctor can go to jail.

Sickening... to be sure.


I just got a book that is a frightening but incredible read. It is called History of Natural Hygiene and Principles of Natural Hygiene by Herbert M. Shelton

The idea is that medicine actually heals the body and patient of NOTHING.
It is creating an environment wherein the body can heal itself.

This hardly ever involves adding anything but in removing all impediments to health (as in an unhygienic state) and then waiting. That is all.

I am still reading it but it is a concept I know is true from watching plants respond to adversity. They grow around and in spite of all threats...unless their basic "needs" sunlight, nutrients etc...are compromised.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 



this lady is obviously unable to come to a reasonable conclusion one because of her refusal of treatment, and two because of her mental impairment


So to you the only reasonable option is accept treatment and any other choice reflects mental instabilities?

Cancer treatments do not always work, but they generally do make you very, very ill. So to view forced treatments as "saving her life" is a bit premature.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by SheaWolf]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 




In the US if a doctor does not use radiation, chemotherapy or drugs to treat cancer the doctor can go to jail.

Sickening... to be sure.


Indeed. My mother's doctor had heard of a treatment that he thought would work for my mother. It didn't involve such body depleting chemicals as he was being forced to use. But, it wasn't "legal" in the U.S. and he wasn't allowed to use it and her insurance wouldn't cover it.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by drkid
 



America = Human Rights Rapist.


Right on brother!! Fight the Power! Oh damn. The article has nothing to do with America. Human Rights are open to discussion in this case and have nothing to do with rape. I guess one of us throws out soundbites without reading OPs or links? Never let facts get in the way of politics, huh?

On topic. There are some extreme opinions in here. The woman is so ill (dying) that the Judge has given permission for her to be forcibly saved on grounds of diminished responsibility (phobia).

The Daily Mail is typically leaving out some detail to lead their readers to conclusions...


because she had a “significant impairment in intellectual functioning as a consequence of a learning disability”. It meant that she did not have the capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 “to make decisions concerning her future medical treatment”.
Times

A 'significant impairment' is the crux of the matter. The lady in question is likely to be in supervised housing (ward of the state) otherwise her case wouldn't become a legal issue. If this is the case, the Trust with the responsibility for her welfare is acting from a difficult, but caring position.

They face the choice between letting her die due to an irrational phobia or following the course of action they have done. I can understand why some people see the negative side to the story, but I can also see a vulnerable woman being saved from herself.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SheaWolf
 
Yes! Although they do make you very ill, you deal with it in hopes of getting better and beating the cancer, a bit "premature"? um last I checked without it she was going to die. By the way her reasoning for not accepting the treatment was what lead me to believe her judgment was impaired, and when the article said she was also mentally impaired this only confirmed it! Her reasoning was not it would make her ill. Her reasoning was she was afraid of needles and hospitals, not that the treatment would make her ill. And although cancer treatments do not always work, not doing anything about the cancer will never work in terms of a cure.



Way I see it, she either gets the operation and will maybe live, or she won't and will surely die. And the article states it will be a "life saving" operation, so the chances of beating the cancer via the operation sound pretty good based off the article which is the only thing we have to base this whole topic on!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SheaWolf
 


Well I agree they shouldnt force her, but not for the same reasons some of you think.

I do think they should be allowed to force people who are not in their right mind to accept treatment. Its kind of like not allowing children to refuse treatment because they are afraid of needles. The law recognizes that some people are not competent to make decisions for themselves. In that regard, this is no stretch, really.

But if she has ovarian cancer, she really doesnt have much of a chance no matter what they do, unfortunately. And since they probably can not cure her, forcing treatment on her is not really "in her best interests" since the best they can do is prolong her life. Statistically speaking, anyway, miracles do happen.

I would say the only way force should be justified on someone in her situation is if they could cure her. In this case, they cant. They should leave her alone.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I suppose my judgment on this could be a bit cloudy on this topic since cancer affected my life in a profound way. But I still see it as HER personal choice.

As for the success of the removal, that is never a guaranteed thing. Sure her death is much surer without the surgery, but not all people are afraid of dying. To many there are much worse things than death. That does not make them mentally impaired.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 
There is no reason why they can't save her. Your saying with or without the surgery she dies, oooo ovarian cancer soo much different from every other form of cancer. No, it's not, if caught prematurely it can be treated, just like annny other form of caner. If she had no hope of living I doubt the doctors would force this treatment on her, she has not been marked terminally ill.



Grant you I do agree with the part where you said miracles happen.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by XxRagingxPandaxX]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SheaWolf
 


Honestly, ovarian cancer has such a horrible death rate, all it would do is buy her time. And if she was terrified of hospitals, she would have all that extra time to be doing things that terrified her.

Quality of life matters as much as quantity.

If they could cure her, one could justify making her suffer for a while so that she could enjoy years of healthy life. But she is VERY unlikely to be cured. So all they are doing is making sure she spends the rest of her life doing things she is phobic of.

They should just let her life end naturally, and give her whatever pills they can to make her comfortable.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SheaWolf
I suppose my judgment on this could be a bit cloudy on this topic since cancer affected my life in a profound way. But I still see it as HER personal choice.

As for the success of the removal, that is never a guaranteed thing. Sure her death is much surer without the surgery, but not all people are afraid of dying. To many there are much worse things than death. That does not make them mentally impaired.
I'm sorry for your loss. But although there are things worse than death one of them is not getting a "life saving operation", and not only that if she doesn't get this surgery done, and even if there is a remote chance which she can live because of the surgery which there DEFINITELY is, think of all the lives that that that would be affected family members etc. if she did not get this operation done and try to fight it, when she could have lived!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


That is one part I do not understand also. Those doctors must know the odds of success are against them in her case, yet they take it to a judge to force her. They will terrorize her and she will still be ill, it is wrong.

All I see benefiting from this is the doctors bank accounts.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX
 


There is no mention of family members supporting or defending the actions against this woman. Since it has been left to the courts to decide for her it would appear that there is no family. Though I would hope otherwise.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join