Saturday, 2 October 2010

Once They Get The Bit Between Their Teeth…

…they rarely let go:
A woman is being forced to have a life-saving operation against her wishes following a landmark ruling at the High Court.
If it sounds familiar, that’s because it’s happened before. And they now clearly have a taste for it.

And why not? As Leg-Iron points out , they seem to be able to go as far as they want, with no-one willing or able to call a halt…
The 69-year-old patient, who can only be identified as D, has refused to undergo surgery for a potentially fatal condition affecting her womb.

She will now be put to sleep almost a week before the operation so she has no power of preventing it going ahead.
Isn’t that length of sedation a risk, then? Yes. But we’ll come back to that later…
The woman is suffering from severe schizophrenia, and doctors from her local hospital argued that her state of mind prevented her from making rational decisions.
So, presumably, she's permanently hospitalised?
The court heard how the woman has an intense dislike of doctors and nurses, and refused to go to hospital voluntarily.
Ah. It would seem not.
…in a landmark ruling judge Mrs Justice Macur ordered that the operation should go ahead.

The woman will need to be given a general aesthetic six days before the surgery so she will have no way of stopping it going ahead.

Mrs Macur said such restraint was to be used only if deemed "absolutely necessary" and that all reasonable steps were to be taken to minimise distress and preserve D's "greatest dignity possible in the circumstances".
Bit difficult to do that, if you've already allowed them to treat her like a wild animal requiring veterinary treatment! It's a wonder these doctors aren't currently paging through the brochure from 'DartGunsRUs'...
She said that the risks associated with anaesthesia and surgery were "proportionate" in terms of the likely greater good.
And if she dies, so what? Justice Macur can bathe in the warm glow of having 'dne the right thing'...

I feel sorry for her defence, who must be wondering how they could have failed to outline the horrors of this sort of...

Oh, FFS!!!
Barrister Bridget Dolan, representing the woman, also supported the ruling.

She said that the treatment itself was clearly in patient D's best interests and that the court's intervention was needed in the unusual circumstances of the case.
I should be surprised. I'm not. Not any more...


Woman on a Raft said...

But doctors argued her case is very serious and if not treated, would result in bladder infections, kidney failure and ultimately even death.

Consultants from her local hospital applied to the High Court's Court of Protection for permission to perform a hysterectomy to remove the womb in a rare legal battle.

What nonsense is this? A prolapsed womb is fairly common and it is fixable, but it is also only 'potentially' fatal in the way anything is if you are 70. Queen Victoria had one and it was only discovered at her death, which was from old age. The full out-of-body prolapses which used to occur in the days of multiple pregnancies are now very rare.

If you have a prolapsed womb, you won't necessarily be whisked in to hospital.

Just because surgery might make someone more comfortable, this has to be balanced against the trauma of the surgery, how pronounced the prolapse is - it might be quite tolerable if it isn't causing any continence problems - and whether the patient would derive much benefit from it at.

This is an example of judges and doctors indulging in drama. What ever is driving it, it isn't the best interests of the patient. In respect of a schizophrenic, the first thing is not to subject them to persecution which feeds their paranoia and suicidal tendencies.

Sue said...

They've left us nothing. No dignity, no choice, nothing.

I hate hospitals and Doctors too. I hate to admit it but I will gladly suffer than have some quack get his hands on me.

What happened to her defence? Is that legal?

Mummylonglegs said...

The sad thing is, I spoke to my ex about the other case (he works for the NHS) and he totally supported the right for Doctors etc to force those deemed mentally unstable to undergo medical procedures against their wishes.

These cases are not about saving lives, they are about Doctors etc extending their powers with legal backing. Everytime a case like this goes in favour of the Doctors they gain a little more power over those they are trusted to treat.

I wonder how long it will be before Drs are granted the power to deem a Jehovah Witness mentally unstable if they refuse a life saving blood transfusion.

It would appear these days that the only thing saving you from the Medical Gods is believing in another God.

Mummy x

Woman on a Raft said...

It's a stitch-up. Dolan was not chosen for her ability to represent the patient and her interest, but to sell her out officially.

Never use a legal representative who makes most of their money from the state e.g. solicitors who also act for social services departments. They get too pally. Conflict of interest, and yours will be dumped.

Bridget Dolan

"A large proportion of Bridget’s professional life is spent in the Court of Protection and the High Court’s Family Division in cases involving issues of capacity and best interests. Her practice covers all types of disputes regarding both medical treatment and the wider social welfare of incapacitated adults and children. She is regularly instructed by the Official Solicitor."

I don't care how many letters she's got after her name; I wouldn't trust this woman to represent my best interests.

I'd never be surprised to find that poor old prolapse never wakes up and has been broken for parts and research by next week.

subrosa said...

What a hell of a state of affairs. Prolapses are quite common in the over 65s to some degree. Obviously they don't like the fact she takes up a hospital bed every now and again because of serious bladder infections.

It would seem she'd been in the 'care' of the mental health lot for some years. That'll be why she was given the lawyer she was as the lawyer is part of the set-up as WoaR says.

I've learned to stay out of the way of medics unless it's life or death. This poor woman didn't have that choice.

Joe said...

So the Court of Protection can move quickly, when my Mum was dying, we were waiting for over a year to get an order so that we could access her bank account to pay for certain aspects of her care, nursing home fees and such, she died before it came, the solicitor didn't get a penny and I pray for the day they come knocking.....

JuliaM said...

"This is an example of judges and doctors indulging in drama."

It seems they do this for the same reason dogs lick their balls. Because they can.

And because it feels good.

"What happened to her defence? Is that legal?"

Remarkably, it seems to be. The safeguards and checks on all kinds of protection issues don't seem to work. Anna Raccoon has had a few good posts on this lately.

"Everytime a case like this goes in favour of the Doctors they gain a little more power over those they are trusted to treat."

As usual, ratchets only ever work in one direction...

"It's a stitch-up. Dolan was not chosen for her ability to represent the patient and her interest, but to sell her out officially."

That 'who watches the watchers' thing crops up again...

"So the Court of Protection can move quickly, when my Mum was dying, we were waiting for over a year..."

Like the SS (social workers), their priorities seem a little skewed...