Sometimes, legislature needs a prod. <shrugs> I wish somebody would prod Parliament into sorting our horrible mess of regulations out. As in, soon, rather than "when we get around to it".

Guidelines can be helpful things.

edited 19th Jun '12 7:27:51 PM by Euodiachloris

Still while I don't really disagree with her sentiment I think she is overstepping her place to make such a decision.

All well it's not really important, it's not like the next judge can't just over rule her when he has got a point to prove.

edited 19th Jun '12 7:38:18 PM by joeyjojo

The judiciary is an important part of the lawmaking process as well. It seems like the accusion of judicial activism gets thrown out whenever a judge makes a decision that ruffles a few feathers.

If the right die was in the Canadian Constitution I would agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that is not.

It may not have a provision explicitly stating that, but it's also the job of the judiciary to interpret the intent of the people who drafted the Constitution, and not just the literal words. I'm not familiar enough with the Canadian Constitution to have an informed opinion on whether or not that's the case, though.

There are few times where I think the law should be capable of deciding what is done with my body. But if I'm in the grip of a mental condition that makes me want to do something that in my right mind (i.e. without that condition) I would not want to do to my body (e.g. killing myself), and it is a recoverable/treatable condition, then I don't have a problem granting the law that right.

A thorough investigation should occur before the government should be allowed to make that choice, but in the case of a wish to kill oneself when one is suffering from a condition that is recoverable, such an investigation should be conducted, as this is a rather permanent decision.

Knowing only what I know now, I would say that the judge made the right call, assuming there aren't some facts I'm not aware of.

Philosophically speaking, I can't agree that it's inherently irrational to choose to die. If it's a choice, then it's a value judgment; "I do not choose to continue living, because I derive more pain from life than I do pleasure." (Nihilism is not irrational, though it's rather unproductive.) If you believe in human free will, then you have to accept that as a choice, which means that it's probably inconsistent to treat it as a mental health issue; either it should be a crime (whether for public policy reasons or moralistic ones) or permitted. Personally, I'd be for the latter.

Of course, the fact is that humans don't have "free will" as such, and someone's value judgments can change from moment to moment on the basis of hormonal swings. So I think there's a valid public policy reason to restrain an individual from suicide temporarily on mental health grounds. A sustained desire for death, however, should probably be either respected or criminalized unless you want to go for a revolutionary (or at least radically utilitarian) moral philosophy. In the case of this woman, that probably means letting her starve.

@Aondeug (#99): Yeah, I guess I was sounding condescending. I'll try again:

There’s nothing wrong with becoming a therapist, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to help people. There’s also nothing inherently wrong with doing it because it makes yourself feel good.

However, there’s a point where you have to respect that other people have other ideas of what is good for them, what they really want, and which kind of help they need. Thinking to know better what someone else “really needs” is a dangerous terrain; people often go wrong in that respect because most people don’t realize how different people and their lives are.

Guess what I wanted to say is this: If you’re religious, and you’re a therapist, you should not view therapy as a sacred mission, nor as a way of proselytizing. I don’t know if you are or ever were in danger to make that mistake, but that was the thought that was on my mind.

You're kind of not supposed to do this anyway if you're a therapist, since that's not what a therapist's job is. One must set aside his or her biases and beliefs and attempt to understand the thought process of the person they're dealing with from that person's point of view, and that includes understanding their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

edited 22nd Jun '12 4:17:56 PM by 0dd1

I already responded to him via a PM that yes I know that and don't intend to do that.

So please drop this line of conversation immediately.

Oh, I was just talking generally. I didn't even notice you mentioned that.

's okay. I just want the derail to end. I should have moved to P Ms a long time ago...

BUT YES. ANOREXIC WOMAN.

Thread Hop:

Feeding tubes are a bitch to maintain. They have to be constantly checked due to complications and chance of infection...ugg.

If she wants to die let her die. Just because someone has a chance to be cured doesn't mean they care or want to be. If I had cancer, I would probably refuse chemo because of what that does to people. I prefer quality over quantity.

Her family supports her decision. She's not abandoning any children or asking for government aid to help her die.

Just let her die. It's her choice.

When the "treatment" to something is eating things than there's no reason to refuse treatment other than the anorexia. As many others on this thread said, starvation actually makes the food problems worse by supressing hunger, meaning her body and mind are both tricking her into thinking she doesn't need food. Anorexia can be dealt with with therapy.

Well, that woman was apparently aware she would die without food, so she definitely wasn't "tricked by her body and mind" into thinking she didn't need food.

She could have the best therapists, treatment plans, and support systems in the world, but if she really wants to die nothing will matter.

I can only imagine the resentment and determination that can come from being forced bodily to deny your own wish.

Again, it's not like she is under house arrest only, under forced supervision, or mandatory counselling. They are force feeding her...

There are bounds of reason when it comes to helping your fellow man. To me, forcing this woman to stay alive in such a physically compelling manner is beyond that reason.

If you want her to live, inspire her to live. Give her a puropose or a task. Don't force feed her like a an animal. How much respect and dignity does that show?

Regardless of you and your family's wishes, we the state are going to traumatize you and deny you your wishes because we are confident you will thank us later. Then when you are all better, you can be a happy, little citizen again and we can pay attention to other things more important than you.

Makes me really uncomfortable.

edited 27th Jun '12 11:22:12 AM by Gabrael

That may well be the case. However, to not attempt intervention and then allow therapy with both her and the family (there may be more going on with that acceptance of theirs than we know: call me a cynic, but that's a fair few red flags waving in my head) we'd deny the opportunity of a future her to come to terms with what occurred.

But, if she truly wishes suicide upon having been treated, that is always an option open to her. Well, as long as she doesn't ask for medically sponsored assisted suicide, but works out how to go about if effectively. From the sound of it, she'll have help from family, which the government would likely ignore. As long as no pressure by them is in effect.

edited 27th Jun '12 11:29:47 AM by Euodiachloris

How can suicide still be an option if her preferred method is taken away from her. If she does have a feeding tube inserted, it will have to be monitered, so it's not like she can be alone to try something else.

She isn't given free will to choose. She is being forced when there is really no reason for her to. By all means if you want to talk someone off a ledge, do so. But if they decide to jump stay out of their way.

I find it ironic the legal system will jump in on a case of a woman who is choosing a very unconventional, but a very spiritual method of death. But reform and rehab drug offenders? Hells no.

We (as society) have our priorities messed up. Let her do as she wishes. It's not worth violating someone's body over what we think her solution should be.

Well, the problem in this case is her wishes impact on the staff. She is asking them to violate the law as it stands by withholding treatment for a condition that can be managed and palliated without resorting to death. Ergo, it is not just her concern, as she has been hospitalised.

Now, if she planned to shut herself in a house for a few weeks, stocked up on various comforts and necessities to make the starvation more comfortable for herself, told her family to leave her alone and got on with it, it'd be a wholly different story. As it is, she's not in that situation at all.

edited 27th Jun '12 12:02:49 PM by Euodiachloris

So, let her go. Let her go home and die. It's not that hard.

It may sound like I am oversimplifing things, but in this case I don't see why it can't be that simple. It should have never gotten this big to begin with.

Maybe she'll get lucky and change her mind. Maybe she'll get another kind of lucky and decide to hang herself with a power cord. Until then we have another case of a state sanctioned pet mouse.

I wonder who's paying all her medical bills.

She's a Brit: it's on the NHS, and the NHS is doing its charter by her, whether she likes it or not. <shrugs> So, the taxpayers are stumping up for this one. Including her and her family. Oh, and me.

To be honest, I think she must have been sectioned by the very same family who now supposedly support her decision to die (not any old Tom, Dick or Harry can have you treated against your will: somebody has to sign on the dotted line at the very start, and that means "relative"). They should have just shut up and let her get on with it if they were serious about that "supporting her choice" thing, instead of running to social services and/or the local hospital.

edited 27th Jun '12 4:37:38 PM by Euodiachloris