Right to nutrition and water for the terminally ill

[noxlumos]

A man, Leslie Burke, suffering from Freidrich's Ataxia has just lost his appeal to guarantee that his wishes to to be fed and given water once his condition becomes so severe that he is no longer able to communicate with his Drs.I find this deeply worrying, given that he is now attempting to safeguard himself for what must be for him a very foreseeable future. What does everyone else feel?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08082006/325/patient- loses-right-food-case.html

[tara20]

I find to be fed and given water is a basic human right , no
matter what the condition. Where do you draw the line? Do we really want to do things the american way and let patients die of hunger and thirst? I think not.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I support the right of individuals to choose euthanasia. This is a personal belief and I feel it should be legalised and made available to those who want it.

I therefore also feel that this man should be granted his personal wish to be fed and watered for as long as he is alive.

[Pippa68]

It's absolutely disgraceful! how can you let a man die like that?

When mass murderers go on hunger strike they are tube fed, when most would much rather let them die.

What a perverted world we live in.

[Nick.Detroit]

If he has made that decision with 'sound mind' then it should be upheld.

This also applies if he had wished to 'not' be fed, and let die. (i.e. not force-fed with a tube / machine / whatever)

[kipchik]

I believe we all have the right to decide our own lives,simple as that!

[beryllium]

it seems so strange that we are not allowed euthanasia, and our own decisions as to when to pull the plug on our own lives is taken from us.
but...some in the hospital and the government can decide when to kill us, and a nice slow death by starvation seems appropriate to them, what is our law on feeding and watering the dying? what's the human rights law on it?
I will be going to Holland or Switzerland when I've had enough, and by golly the temptation to move there now is getting stronger by the day.
it seems living wills mean nothing and no respect is given to terminally ill humans... I do so hope that this gentleman is treated by a good and caring doctor.
Sorry to rant, but it's a very real subject for me.
B. xx

[Oneeyedvic]

Firslty, I am very much in favour of euthansia, as can be seen by my previous postings on the subject.

However, if you read the article properly, you will see this quote: "As a result it decided that Burke had failed to establish that under UK law he faced a real or imminent risk that food or drink would be withdrawn leading to a painful death by thirst."

So really, he has been to court for no reason -the courts believe that he will be fed and watered without legally enforcing it!

[noxlumos]

yeah I'm aware of what the courts "think" vic, but surely if that is truly the case then a ruling IN his favour only endorses what the court "thinks" the Drs will do anyway and could cause no possible harm. Suppose at the time the Drs don't "think" in THEIR opinion, ( not his) that he should be fed and given water? If that is the case then this man will be starved to death/ die of dehydration ( a most distressing and painful way to go) despite wanting to live, which to me is nothing short of murder.Having known someone who starved to death I'm very touchy on this subject and probably not at all reasonable but I have to say you are the first person that I've spoken to either on the net or in the street that thinks this may be an okay ruling to make. It seems to have frightened a great many people, me included.

[beryllium]

I hope, that if it ever comes to be, that his family need to fight further for him that they use Human Rights... The last 2 sentences says it all.

No. 12 (1999), The right to adequate food�.

The right to adequate food, like any other human right, imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligation to respect,
to protect and to fulfil. In turn, the obligation to fulfil incorporates both an obligation to facilitate and to provide. The obligation to respect existing access to food requires States parties not to take any measures that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect requires measures by the State to ensure that enterprises or inidividuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food. The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) means the State must pro-actively engage in activities intended to strengthen people�s access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood, including food security. Finally whenever an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal. States have the obligation to fulfil (provide) that right directly.

[hazy123]

I totally diaagree it is his right .. just as much as it is his right to have to right to die if he chooses to. It should be up the person and what the want whatever they may want, it should never be up to a judge sitting behind a desk.

[Oneeyedvic]

Hey nox,

Taking the reverse scenario: Mr Burke degenerates terribly and doctors believe that every breath he is taking causes him pain. Sadly the court ruling is that he must be fed and watered so by his own actions, he will be living in agony with no way of communicating this.

Would you like to make this decision?

At the moment, he will be fed and watered unless doctors believe a patient's condition is so severe, and their prognosis so poor, that artificial nutrition or hydration - giving water - causes more suffering than benefit (GMC guidelines).

I obviously don't know about your personal case, however I do follow most euthansia cases with interest. As previously stated, I am for euthanasia (more so after my mother in law died of a terminal illness whihc was very painful).

Things will always go wrong - and it is obviously very sad when they do - however, I have yet to see a compelling argument that the courts got this one wrong.

[claireyfairy]

It is rediculous that doctors basically have the right to murder their patients in this way. If a person is still alive then they should be fed and watered otherwise they are not dying of their illness but through neglect.