Fed by force

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9334118/Anorexic-medical-student-should-be-fed-against-her-will-judge-rules.html

A judge in London decided that a medical student who is suffering from anorexia should be force fed. The girl already made arrangements with a hospital for when she dies, but the judge wants to "save" her by forcing her to eat.

I see this as a huge invasion in somebody's life. Yes, it would be ok to suggest that she gets more or better treatment (from what I saw from the article, she already did, but I guess it didn't help) but forcing her to eat isn't going to help anything in my opinion. Disorders like anorexia are mental, and they need to be treated as such. If you're forcing somebody with a mental disorder to do something they don't want to do, is it really going to help? Or is it going to make her feel so horrible about herself that she will take longer to recover? Thoughts?

EvanKeel

I'm trying to decide if this is close enough to someone with severe depression being kept from killing themselves. It would depend, in part, I think on whether her anorexia has a legitimate chance of killing her.The obvious difference is that someone with anorexia doesn't necessarily want to end up dead. Their mental disorder is a little different. But in either case, their mental ability to make decisions about their well-being is hampered enough that they can't really make an informed decision.

Even laws in the US that allow for assisted suicide require that the patient not have any sort of psychological problem that might be causing the desire for the suicide (among other usual requirements).

Whether or not it interferes with her recovery, it may be necessary for survival. It's hard to recover from anorexia if you starve yourself to death.

summertime_girl

If someone is deemed a danger to themselves (or others), they can be forced to do much though involuntary placement into treatment facilities. If this girl is so emotionally unstable that she cannot eat on her own, I see no recourse but to put her into 24/7 treatment, with therapy, and force feed as necessary to save her life.

From this article, she also has some extreme mental health issues as well. She desperately needs help, even by force.

fbmandy55

I don't see how it is any different than involuntary hospitalization of someone who has another kind of mental illness and requires treatment or therapy. They make those people eat, they MAKE them take their meds... I don't believe in letting her go as she probably has a chemical imbalance. It's not the REAL her wanting to die...

This reminds me of Girl Interrupted. The anorexic girl dressed in a little hospital gown tells Whoopi that she "wants her f-ing clothes" and Whoopi says, "Well you will have to eat something won't you?!"

LastSixtySix

I don't believe in letting her go as she probably has a chemical imbalance. It's not the REAL her wanting to die...

The woman in question is 32 yrs. old and a medical student. She is no child or slouch in the intellectual department. To say that she doesn't really want to die is a distortion. "The judge said that the case had ''raised for the first time in my experience the real possibility of life-sustaining treatment not being in the best interests of a person who, while lacking capacity, is fully aware of her situation. . .The competing factors are, in my judgment, almost exactly in equilibrium, but having considered them as carefully as I am able, I find that the balance tips slowly but unmistakably in the direction of life-preserving treatment.'"

If the judge tipped the balance ever so slowly in the direction of individual free choice, would that have been so bad? The bigger problem here seems to be all of the questions conveniently avoided by forcing the woman to live. Significantly, how can the laws logically support a "right" to life without also a "right" to die? If a human life is considered, the pragmatic powers that be wittingly or unwittingly continue to follow the command in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply." Now that the planet hosts 7 billion and growing, are an individual's chances to live happy and productive lives as they see fit proportionately enhanced? Isn't this woman's case a true depiction of individual sovereignty? To decide against a reasoned person's will in order to preserve a careless reckoning with myth serves no one and is intellectual rape continually served up as the highest kindness and good. It's just benevolent British colonialism under a different guise.

But that's not all. If the judge had allowed the woman her sovereignty, would that not have removed her possible individual excuse or reliance on the government to keep her alive? Confront a person with their mortality and they might, just might, change their mind. And, if they don't, which serves the higher good: forced life/death or freedom in life/death?

fbmandy55

I don't believe in letting her go as she probably has a chemical imbalance. It's not the REAL her wanting to die...

The woman in question is 32 yrs. old and a medical student. She is no child or slouch in the intellectual department. To say that she doesn't really want to die is a distortion. "The judge said that the case had ''raised for the first time in my experience the real possibility of life-sustaining treatment not being in the best interests of a person who, while lacking capacity, is fully aware of her situation. . .The competing factors are, in my judgment, almost exactly in equilibrium, but having considered them as carefully as I am able, I find that the balance tips slowly but unmistakably in the direction of life-preserving treatment.'"

If she is a medical student who wants to die she IS mentally ill. A sane person who wants to die doesn't continue going to work, to school Etc.. What would be the point of working towards a goal?

Also, If she is a medical student, she will know the results of her actions. She knows that by starving herself, she will eventually die. She can't possibly be living in her own mind and making sound decisions with her knowledge. She needs treatment.

On the other hand, I don't believe in forcing people to live, only if they are terminally ill or of extreme old age and have no quality of life. They can make those decisions on their own without the interference of a chemical imbalance or mental illness clouding their judgement. We know that eating disorders are a mental illness.

EvanKeel

The woman in question is 32 yrs. old and a medical student. She is no child or slouch in the intellectual department. To say that she doesn't really want to die is a distortion. "The judge said that the case had ''raised for the first time in my experience the real possibility of life-sustaining treatment not being in the best interests of a person who, while lacking capacity, is fully aware of her situation. . .The competing factors are, in my judgment, almost exactly in equilibrium, but having considered them as carefully as I am able, I find that the balance tips slowly but unmistakably in the direction of life-preserving treatment.'"

If the judge tipped the balance ever so slowly in the direction of individual free choice, would that have been so bad? The bigger problem here seems to be all of the questions conveniently avoided by forcing the woman to live. Significantly, how can the laws logically support a "right" to life without also a "right" to die? If a human life is considered, the pragmatic powers that be wittingly or unwittingly continue to follow the command in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply." Now that the planet hosts 7 billion and growing, are an individual's chances to live happy and productive lives as they see fit proportionately enhanced? Isn't this woman's case a true depiction of individual sovereignty? To decide against a reasoned person's will in order to preserve a careless reckoning with myth serves no one and is intellectual rape continually served up as the highest kindness and good. It's just benevolent British colonialism under a different guise.

But that's not all. If the judge had allowed the woman her sovereignty, would that not have removed her possible individual excuse or reliance on the government to keep her alive? Confront a person with their mortality and they might, just might, change their mind. And, if they don't, which serves the higher good: forced life/death or freedom in life/death?

Essentially, you're suggesting that people have the right to choose their own death even when they lack the capacity for making a rational choice due to mental illness; an extreme eating disorder, I think, would qualify. It's tempting to rally around the "The government can't tell me how to live or die!" banner, but many take the perspective that one of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens, even from their own, disease-induced, self-imposed destruction.

BrettPGH

Here's my question.

What about all the people who DO want to live and don't have access to food? People still starve you know, not intentionally.

Is a judge ordering they be fed?

It just blows my mind that there's a person who can eat but refuses to that people are bending over backwards to save while on the way to that courthouse the judge probably steps over a couple homeless people without a second thought...

jenbit

Ok so maybe I have a slighty different view on this. I'm a nurse in a forensic hospital (translation criminally insane). Anorexia is considered a mental disorder and as such a personal in a "breakdown" can not coherantly make personal decisions regarding their health and/or safety. In that case the law requires the courts to take over a person medical decisions for their personal and public safety. I have had patients here who have refused medication or treatment or eating. We take them to court and get a court order to treat. Then they no longer have the right to refuse. Most people once they have been on thier medication and recieved treatment are happy about it and usually cant even recall clearly the events that were transpiring during their break

auroranflash

Interested to see if she actually manages to recover and live a healthy life in the future. Amidst all the moral struggle in this story, it's all you can hope for if it buys her some time to deal with her eating disorder and other issues and hopefully chooses a way that is not so self destructive... :brokenheart:

Sincerely hope the few friends I have who are struggling with this get the help they need and carry on to higher ground. It makes me so very sad to hear about this.

If you know anyone who is struggling, please direct them to http://www.something-fishy.org/ ... lots of good information there.

LastSixtySix

Here's my question.

What about all the people who DO want to live and don't have access to food? People still starve you know, not intentionally.

Is a judge ordering they be fed?

It just blows my mind that there's a person who can eat but refuses to that people are bending over backwards to save while on the way to that courthouse the judge probably steps over a couple homeless people without a second thought...

Touche, Brett!

LastSixtySix

Essentially, you're suggesting that people have the right to choose their own death even when they lack the capacity for making a rational choice due to mental illness; an extreme eating disorder, I think, would qualify. It's tempting to rally around the "The government can't tell me how to live or die!" banner, but many take the perspective that one of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens, even from their own, disease-induced, self-imposed destruction.

Yes, if you mean that I am concerned about sovereignty - who has it and for how long. You don't go far enough, though, in my belief about the purpose of government. While it is true that government's primary job is to protect its citizens, the form that protection takes is to keep the peace for the general citizenry from unwanted invasion. It is not the government, the schools, health care agencies, or mom and dad to protect aware adult citizens from themselves. Hell, not even in this case. So they will treat her and if she is ever released and still thinks the same way, she can just go and drink herself to death, put a bullet in her head, or slice her wrists. The government only intervened because she was in a hospital.

I believe that the kindly judge in this case decided to keep the woman alive because it was in HIS best interest, not hers and not the society. He believes fundamentally that the right decision is that which garners the greatest number of happy people. He knew if he let her die, the majority of the population would become unhappy so he made the easier decision, whether wittingly or unwittingly. He might have been right, but I believe strongly that in this case there is no right or wrong answer.

The greater question for me is what did the "greater happiness" that was chosen cost? What is the underlying assumption that is accepted without thought? This is a complex issue that requires much more thought and reflection before we pronounce what was right or wrong.

bathsheba_c

On the one hand, I definitely believe that there comes a point in the progression of some illnesses where it is in the best interest of the patient to stop treatment and make the end as comfortable as possible.

In this case, though, based on the facts provided, I agree with the judge. Anorexia is a mental illness, so I am not sure the woman is competent to make the determination that death is preferable to eating. But the two details that swayed me are: 1) it seems like terminal organ damage hasn't happened yet, and 2) new resources are being provided for her to try to get her well.

If it was too late for her anyway, or if it would just be trying the same failed treatments again and again, I would be much more likely to support hospice care.

castadiva

Although I believe in legal euthanasia for those with terminal or degenerative diseases who are otherwise of sound mind, where life-threatening physical symptoms are the product of an unstable mind, I believe society, though the agency of the courts/government, has a duty of care to vulnerable individuals such as this woman, who cannot be said in any way to be choosing her own death in sound mind. This trumps, to my mind, the concept of individual sovereignty/self-determination in cases where the individual in question is making life-thretening choices or actions in an unstable mental state.

Particularly in the cases of eating disorders, the intent of the sufferer is rarely suicidal, but rather focused on a specific bodily outcome - in the case of anorexia, the extreme avoidance of weight gain and/or pursuit of weight loss. The outcome of this intent may lead to death, but that is not a major factor in the way most ED sufferers view or understand their decisions. That being the case, I believe the judge in this case has acted correctly and in the best interests of the individual, the facts of whose life make it unlikely that she is rationally and deliberately attempting to commit suicide through self-starvation.

daffodilsoup

Here's my question.

What about all the people who DO want to live and don't have access to food? People still starve you know, not intentionally.

Is a judge ordering they be fed?

It just blows my mind that there's a person who can eat but refuses to that people are bending over backwards to save while on the way to that courthouse the judge probably steps over a couple homeless people without a second thought...

Wow, this is a perspective I didn't event think of. See? This is why I keep you around!

KimmyEB

Here's my question.

What about all the people who DO want to live and don't have access to food? People still starve you know, not intentionally.

Is a judge ordering they be fed?

It just blows my mind that there's a person who can eat but refuses to that people are bending over backwards to save while on the way to that courthouse the judge probably steps over a couple homeless people without a second thought...

Wow, this is a perspective I didn't event think of. See? This is why I keep you around!

I was thinking that, also--a perspective I didn't think of.

I have nothing really to offer, except that I know damn well that I don't know enough about the mentality behind anorexia, depression, etc. to form an opinion.

iam_thatdude

If she is an adult let her do what she wants....should we force fat ppl to diet?

EvanKeel

If she is an adult let her do what she wants....should we force fat ppl to diet?

That's a fair point. If they're morbidly obese and diagnosed with an eating disorder that could threaten their life, it's kind of a fair comparison. There is a problem though. Eating to excess isn't the same as not eating. If continue to starve yourself to extremes, at some point you will die. It's a fact. If you eat too much, there's no way to tell how it's going to affect the body in direct correlation to one's survival.

I suppose if someone had an eating disorder where they're prone to stuff so much food in their mouth that they choke and can't breath, then I could see it; the connection is direct enough. I'm guessing that's somewhat rare, though.

iam_thatdude

If she is an adult let her do what she wants....should we force fat ppl to diet?

That's a fair point. If they're morbidly obese and diagnosed with an eating disorder that could threaten their life, it's kind of a fair comparison. There is a problem though. Eating to excess isn't the same as not eating. If continue to starve yourself to extremes, at some point you will die. It's a fact. If you eat too much, there's no way to tell how it's going to affect the body in direct correlation to one's survival.

I suppose if someone had an eating disorder where they're prone to stuff so much food in their mouth that they choke and can't breath, then I could see it; the connection is direct enough. I'm guessing that's somewhat rare, though.

But why should the govt b involved in either case?

EvanKeel

If she is an adult let her do what she wants....should we force fat ppl to diet?

That's a fair point. If they're morbidly obese and diagnosed with an eating disorder that could threaten their life, it's kind of a fair comparison. There is a problem though. Eating to excess isn't the same as not eating. If continue to starve yourself to extremes, at some point you will die. It's a fact. If you eat too much, there's no way to tell how it's going to affect the body in direct correlation to one's survival.

I suppose if someone had an eating disorder where they're prone to stuff so much food in their mouth that they choke and can't breath, then I could see it; the connection is direct enough. I'm guessing that's somewhat rare, though.

But why should the govt b involved in either case?

That's a larger question. Either you believe there's a legitimate government concern in preventing its citizens from destroying themselves or you embrace individualism to a degree that you're fine with people killing themselves with no governmental intervention.

The distinction I mention is still valid. Not eating to an extreme degree for long enough will equal death, and a person who chooses that may be diagnosed with a disorder that renders them incapable of making their own rational decisions. It would take a longer and harsher extreme of over eating to justify the same measures for the government telling someone that they're eating too much and it *will* kill them.

macpatti

But why should the govt b involved in either case?

Do we not have an obligation to help the mentally ill?

iam_thatdude

But why should the govt b involved in either case?

Do we not have an obligation to help the mentally ill?

Define help? And how far do u take it?

macpatti

Define help? And how far do u take it?

We'd have to define help based on individual cases. Sometimes help is helping a person get meds and counseling. Sometimes it's having them committed. Even in prisons, we put people on suicide watch.

iam_thatdude

Define help? And how far do u take it?

We'd have to define help based on individual cases. Sometimes help is helping a person get meds and counseling. Sometimes it's having them committed. Even in prisons, we put people on suicide watch.

We put ppl on suicide watch who r incarcerated due to othsr crimes

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

But why should the govt b involved in either case?

Do we not have an obligation to help the mentally ill?

This is a tough question. Yes, I think there are ways that we should be obligated to help the mentally ill ie affordable or free care and treatment for them and more resources. However, being somebody who has suffered from depression, I know that it's not easy to have somebody tell you that you have to, or even that you should seek help. I had to seek help on my own, when I was ready. I also believe that I'm a unique case, in that I did not ever want to end my life, nor did I do anything that might cause death. I occasionally hoped for death, but never acted on it. This woman is doing something that is destroying her body and could very easily lead to death. However, I think she should be in the place where she WANTS to seek help before it's forced on her.

EvanKeel

Is she being forced into therapy or are they just forcing her to consume calories so her body can maintain itself? There's a difference.

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

Is she being forced into therapy or are they just forcing her to consume calories so her body can maintain itself? There's a difference.

It said she was being fed against her will.

EvanKeel

Is she being forced into therapy or are they just forcing her to consume calories so her body can maintain itself? There's a difference.

It said she was being fed against her will.

Right, it was more of a rhetorical question. My point was that they're limiting their actions to measures that will save her life. It's not as if that government is forcing her into some sort of brainwashing.