Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Mentally ill woman to be forced to undergo invasive surgery against her will watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gery-will.html

    "A schizophrenic pensioner will be sedated for seven days against her will so that doctors can treat her for a potentially life-threatening medical condition."

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I guess the fundamental question is, if you were in here position in a years time, being sound of mind now, would you want them to do the same for you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If it is life threatening then I do not see any wrong in this
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    the delusional belief that her condition is normal and does not require any treatment.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1122RTVe3

    Seems fair enough
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    They're not doing it to be horrible, they're doing it to save her.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    This is about mental competancy...if she lacks the mental capacity to understand the consequences of her refusal (as would seem to be the case if she thinks it's normal) then I can't see a problem with this type of intervention.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    sits back with popcorn and a beer :beer: for when the rest of the tinfoil hat wearing anti-psychiatry loons weigh in with their :rant:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Doctors do not treat againts a patient's will unless it falls in line with the Mental Health Act and Mental Capactiy Act. There are lots of measures to make sure these are adhered to, so i fully agree with the descision
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Better treated 'against her will' than not treated and ending up dead.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well it's hardly a lobotomy now, is it? They're doing it to save her life.

    It's essentially a similar situation to that which would come about if we introduced the right to voluntary euthanasia (as I believe we should) - probably one of the first things to be established in any law is that people seeking to end their life must demonstrate mental competence. Can we allow someone to make a life or death decision for themselves when they are afflicted with a mental illness? I don't think so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But she's in no position to think rationally and it is more unfair to effectively allow her to kill herself when she isn't thinking properly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well i used to work in a care home, and you have to go against peoples will on a daily basis
    You have to though, if it's in their best interests - it would be crazy for them not to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The doctors have the right to do so if they think it's in the patient's best interest. When I'm 90 and completely crazy I'd rather they did this than let me die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It goes without saying that the right decision has been made here. The article clearly states the doctors are doing this in her interest and even the barrister representing her agreed with the decision. She doesn't have the capacity to help herself and although this help is "forced", it's saving her life and as has been said above - if you were in her position ten years down the line, sound of mind, you would be glad this decision was made.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's pointless having this discussion here as many here are medics or going into the mental health profession and being in junior positions won't have had the years needed in these professions to have independent thought as well as life experience, as they will defer to what they have been told by lecturers.

    Also I get the feeling with some here,that they do get a kind of strange pleasure from thinking they have power over vunerable people,as lets face it medicine is a trying job doing with other peoples**** bodily fluids and diseases,I wouldn't do it. .Maybe not to cause harm,but I think it's something they find uncomfortble to discuss and would dismiss.

    This has been shown when clear cases of medical negligence have been brought up and many have supported or felt sympathy for the medical staff,even when the negligence was found and the victims given compensation,so was not pure speculation or just the mail winding things up.

    My opinion is, no medical treatment should be forced on anyone whatever their capacity,and it is a step too far for medical staff and by extension the judicary to do this. I would have a different opinion if for instance this woman had a child who needed surgery, and because of her mental health issues was stopping doctors operating on the child.In which case,I would agree with doctors placing the child in care if needs be to carry out this treatment.

    But no, when it is just her own health that will be affected I see no reason to force anyone on the operating table. I think it is a sad reflection that we do this,to anyone whatever their mental capacity. The medical staff who take part in this,in whatever role, should not be in the profession.Just my opinion. Also to say someone is 'schizophrenic',is quite a loaded term, as there have been opinions from qutie eminent people, in psychology ,sociology and psychiatriy, that the term is rather inaccurate,and just a catch all term to describe mental hysteria,we aren't able to understand or cure.

    So basically this woman has been detained in a mental institution without her consent, for a condition that to some is debatable in terms of if it exists and how it should be treated, and is now going to be sedated and operated on without her consent.With an operation which itself has risks. I also think her 'legal advisor', is a disgrace. She should complain to the bar council,although it's probably pointless as they will just make out she hasn't the capacity to complain.Lets face it ,she is 69, in a mental hospital ,her quality life will be relatively poor as it is, how much easier will this treatment make her existance in reality?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    I think it's pointless having this discussion here as many here are medics or going into the mental health profession and being in junior positions won't have had the years needed in these professions to have independent thought as well as life experience, as they will defer to what they have been told by lecturers.

    Also I get the feeling with some here,that they do get a kind of strange pleasure from thinking they have power over vunerable people,as lets face it medicine is a trying job doing with other peoples sh1t bodily fluids and diseases,I wouldn't do it. .Maybe not to cause harm,but I think it's something they find uncomfortble to discuss and would dismiss.

    This has been shown when clear cases of medical negligence have been brought up and many have supported or felt sympathy for the medical staff,even when the negligence was found and the victims given compensation,so was not pure speculation or just the mail winding things up.

    My opinion is, no medical treatment should be forced on anyone whatever their capacity,and it is a step too far for medical staff and by extension the judicary to do this. I would have a different opinion if for instance this woman had a child who needed surgery, and because of her mental health issues was stopping doctors operating on the child.In which case,I would agree with doctors placing the child in care if needs be to carry out this treatment.

    But no, when it is just her own health that will be affected I see no reason to force anyone on the operating table. I think it is a sad reflection that we do this,to anyone whatever their mental capacity. The medical staff who take part in this,in whatever role, should not be in the profession.Just my opinion. Also to say someone is 'schizophrenic',is quite a loaded term, as there have been opinions from qutie eminent people, in psychology ,sociology and psychiatriy, that the term is rather inaccurate,and just a catch all term to describe mental hysteria,we aren't able to understand or cure.

    So basically this woman has been detained in a mental institution without her consent, for a condition that to some is debatable in terms of if it exists and how it should be treated, and is now going to be sedated and operated on without her consent.With an operation which itself has risks. I also think her 'legal advisor', is a disgrace. She should complain to the bar council,although it's probably pointless as they will just make out she hasn't the capacity to complain.Lets face it ,she is 69, in a mental hospital ,her quality life will be relatively poor as it is, how much easier will this treatment make her existance in reality?
    I don't know where to begin with what you posted. Let's ignore the term 'schizophrenia' and focus on the fact that the woman clearly has enough of the symptoms to be given said diagnosis as outlined in the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV. Even if this set of symptoms did not have a label, she would still be exhibiting the symptoms to an extent that necessitated being detained in a mental health hospital without her consent (assuming that she lacks insight and/or refuses to be detained voluntary) to maintain both her safety and others.

    You think it a sad reflection that we force anyone on to the operating table despite their mental capacity; I think it sad that you can not understand that at times this may be necessary. I do not believe that a prolapsed womb is a life-threatening situation but if it were something far more threatening do you think that it would be right for a doctor to not operate/offer treatment because the individual concerned was so unwell/delusional that they thought treatment not necessary? For instance a patient I have met previously who used to think that she was under the control of a princess. If she were to say 'No I cannot have the surgery because the princess won't let me' - do you think it would be justifiable for a doctor to say 'okay, fine. Fair enough, we will not operate on this life threatening illness'.

    Having read the article, however, I think it is absurd that she will be put to sleep a week before the operation to stop her from preventing the operation going ahead. If she really does lack capacity, then there will be no way for her to stop the operation from going ahead. Additionally if she is detained in a hospital, she is not going anywhere fast and will be having the operation regardless. Being sedated for a whole week is completely unjustified. But then again the Daily Mail is not exactly full of facts when it comes to matters like this.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smilee172)
    I don't know where to begin with what you posted. Let's ignore the term 'schizophrenia' and focus on the fact that the woman clearly has enough of the symptoms to be given said diagnosis as outlined in the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV. Even if this set of symptoms did not have a label, she would still be exhibiting the symptoms to an extent that necessitated being detained in a mental health hospital without her consent (assuming that she lacks insight and/or refuses to be detained voluntary) to maintain both her safety and others.

    You think it a sad reflection that we force anyone on to the operating table despite their mental capacity; I think it sad that you can not understand that at times this may be necessary. I do not believe that a prolapsed womb is a life-threatening situation but if it were something far more threatening do you think that it would be right for a doctor to not operate/offer treatment because the individual concerned was so unwell/delusional that they thought treatment not necessary? For instance a patient I have met previously who used to think that she was under the control of a princess. If she were to say 'No I cannot have the surgery because the princess won't let me' - do you think it would be justifiable for a doctor to say 'okay, fine. Fair enough, we will not operate on this life threatening illness'.

    Having read the article, however, I think it is absurd that she will be put to sleep a week before the operation to stop her from preventing the operation going ahead. If she really does lack capacity, then there will be no way for her to stop the operation from going ahead. Additionally if she is detained in a hospital, she is not going anywhere fast and will be having the operation regardless. Being sedated for a whole week is completely unjustified. But then again the Daily Mail is not exactly full of facts when it comes to matters like this.
    As I said previously, I don't believe anyone,whatever their mental capacity should be forced onto an operating table for a surgical procedure. Partly this is because, all surgery has a risk of either not correcting the issue, making it worse in some form either the illness or perhaps a serious infection not connected to the original illness (particularly relevant in a British hospital) , or even death.If the patient is judged by the NHS not capable to not consent, how is she capable of understanding the risks and making an informed choice? When I had some minor surgery I had to sign a consent form showing I understood the risks.


    My other contention, is this, I think it makes me very uncomfortable to be living in a society, where a state health service can force a decison over anyones life.Of course it isn't at the levels of Nazi germany, but I think red china would be an apt comparison. I think if someone wants to believe a princess is stopping them from surgery, let them think that. This woman in the article is a long term mental patient, why put her through all this at her age, what kind of life will she have afterwards? how will she ever trust medical staff again? Leave the poor old dear alone I say. This smacks to me, of a power hungry 'medical team' not liking their decisions not being carried out and perhaps concerned about resources going into to 'managing' the patient if she is allowed to refuse this surgery.

    I agree that what Iam proposing isn't ideal, but in my view the alternative is much worse and a slippery slope.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    As I said previously, I don't believe anyone,whatever their mental capacity should be forced onto an operating table for a surgical procedure. Partly this is because, all surgery has a risk of either not correcting the issue, making it worse in some form either the illness or perhaps a serious infection not connected to the original illness (particularly relevant in a British hospital) , or even death.If the patient is judged by the NHS not capable to not consent, how is she capable of understanding the risks and making an informed choice? When I had some minor surgery I had to sign a consent form showing I understood the risks.


    My other contention, is this, I think it makes me very uncomfortable to be living in a society, where a state health service can force a decison over anyones life.Of course it isn't at the levels of Nazi germany, but I think red china would be an apt comparison. I think if someone wants to believe a princess is stopping them from surgery, let them think that. This woman in the article is a long term mental patient, why put her through all this at her age, what kind of life will she have afterwards? how will she ever trust medical staff again? Leave the poor old dear alone I say. This smacks to me, of a power hungry 'medical team' not liking their decisions not being carried out and perhaps concerned about resources going into to 'managing' the patient if she is allowed to refuse this surgery.

    I agree that what Iam proposing isn't ideal, but in my view the alternative is much worse and a slippery slope.
    Your point kind of contradicts itself. You say these people, no matter how mentally unwell have the right to refuse an operation if they so wish, as they should still have freedom of choice. Yet on the other hand you are saying that as she has an enduring mental health problem she should in a nutshell be left for her health to decline as her quality of life is so poor anyway. So you think she should have the freedom to decline the operation, yet you also feel that (simply put) she would effectively be better off dead. I think you are very cynical... has it never crossed your mind that there are healthcare professionals out there who do their job because they actually care rather than because they are power hungry? That medical staff may actually care for the wellbeing of the woman in this article? I think this example has more to do with the lady's physical wellbeing than a medical team being power crazy enough that they want their decision carried out.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.