Debating thread

[Doro]

I'd like to debate this.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4194105.stm


cos personally I think it's wrong

no matter what the guy did, no matter if they section him or not

if he doesn't want to eat they shouldn't force feed him


I guess it runs around the euthanasia debate a bit

plus the mental health debate

it looks as tho they only sectioned him so they could force feed him so they're saying anyone on hunger strike must be mad

I don't agree

they let terrorists go on hunger strike

why was that different?

let him do what he wants, if he wants to die why shouldn't he? Especially as he isn't hurting anyone else in the process (as opposed to fellas who park their cars on railway lines..!!)



ok, so what do you lot think??

[Gypsy]

im with you on this one doro,
no way should he be straped down and fed thro a tube, they dont do it to anorexics (sp??) and thats classed as a mental conditon

[technoboiler]

so they are gonna keep him alive to put him in prison!

i think its against human riites to forse feed anyone. Whats then to stop doctors etc wiring a persons mouth shut if they are obese and killing themselves that way?
chop the hands off smokers who are killing themselves that way. ???

totally wrong.

If a person decides not to eat it is outragious to forse them, surely it is a basic human right.

[Jay]

I'll second that notion.

Perhaps they work on the basis that No-one can choose to be born, therefore they shouldn't be able to choose to die.

Seems wrong to me though, as long as you aren't gonna hurt anyone else of course.

[krammer]

well its a sad state of affairs when terminally ill people have to make a traumatic journey to switzerland to be able to die at a time of their own choosing.having said that it is actually done here though but obviously in a far more discreet way. when my dad was dying he was in bed at home and in a very distressed way, the mcmillan nurse asked me, the old gal my sister and my wife if we wanted him to 'be more comfortable' we all knew what she mean't she had'nt been gone more than 10 minutes when my old mans suffering ended.

[technoboiler]

different thread krammer,,,,,lol

[krammer]

different thread krammer,,,,,lol oh bollocks! sorry people :o

[100%Pat]

I may be wrong but I would imagine that as he's a crim the prison system/Home office dept etc would have a 'duty of care' and if they just let him die, there would be repercussions, so they are forcing him to eat. I personally think they should let the evil twat die.... and make it as painful as possible.

[poridge wog]

gotta agree with pat on this one the more painful the better

[Sir Ewok]

Didn't stop them letting Bobby Sands, the IRA man, from going on hunger strike. He died in prison and became a 'Martyr' to the cause. Surely a more pressing reason for keeping somebody alive, than for a show trial.

It is against human rights to force feed prisoners, or indeed anorexics, but this government like any other does as it wants and then we fork out the compo later. If he is guilty (he hasn't been tried yet) he would save us a fortune in jail time by dying and if he is innocent, then they should respect his wish to be allowed to die. Some peeps may think that he must be guilty because he wants to die, but it could be grief over the loss of his daughter. Until the trial and possible sentence, then he is an innocent man and should be accorded the same treatment as anybody else.

[100%Pat]

I am concerned that they have sectioned him, when Doctors refused to do it only days ago. I'd like to know how they managed it. Obviously now they have sectioned him they can do as they please, the 'officially ' mentally ill seem to have loads of rights but in my experience (my daughter) they in fact have very little when they disagree with their treatment!

[Doro]

nothing in this world scares me more then being sectioned cos you lose all your rights and the quacks can do as they please, including ECT which they don't even understand FFS

(learned a lot about this from my days in medical physics)

and there was me thinking it was victorian and barbaric and had been stopped in the 70s


*shakes with fear*

[100%Pat]

Trouble is they 'tell' you that you have rights, usually a 'charter' of rights is up on the ward etc, but you just try disagreeing with your treatment! You are officially a nutter then and what you say cannot be taken seriously cos you are disturbed or 'ill'.... been there with my daughter, luckily the last time she was a voluntry patient and we just walked out of the meeting , went to the ward collected her clothes (which they had taken away) and took her home there and then. I still think the bitch of a doctor treating her was more of a looney than my daughter, she most defo has a power thing, a very scary women and she had complete control over my daughters life for a while....

[Sir Ewok]

Got to agree with you Pat, unless of course you are a psychoticmass-murderer, then they let you out for 'Care in the community' till you run amok and kill peeps.

[RedRobbie]

I may be wrong but I would imagine that as he's a crim the prison system/Home office dept etc would have a 'duty of care' and if they just let him die, there would be repercussions, so they are forcing him to eat. I personally think they should let the evil twat die.... and make it as painful as possible.

Well observed, thats the entirity of it. Prison, regardless of the sentence or crime should serve not just to incarcerate or punish but to re-abilite. That evil **** is hard to support in any way but the culture of our society is valued on how well we deal with the worse cases and not about the emotional frustrations of keeping revenge as a priority

[fade2black]

Taken from

http://www.hyperguide.co.uk/mha/s3.htm


"Conditions
The grounds for the Application, as stated in the Act, are that person:

is suffering from mental illness, severe mental impairment, pschopathic disorder or mental impairment and his mental disorder is of a nature or degree which make it appropriate for him to receive medical treatment in a hospital; and
in the case of pschopathic disorder or mental impairment, such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition; and
it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment and it cannot be provided unless he is detained under this Section. "

It is a tricky situation and I agree that if guilty he deserves as painful a death as possible but the conditions above must have been proved and by more than one expert. Being on Section allows 'the state' to make 'correct' decisions about the persons health (rightly or wrongly as you may see it). Obviously starving yourself isnt on your best interests and they do put anorexics on Section when needed.

Speaking as someone who has worked in secure units with people who have been sectioned, worked to bring people off section and into the community and supported friends who have been sectioned i can say that it is complex, sometimes intensely infuriating and sometimes intensely rewarding (it can be good to have someone else make all your decisions when you are right down at the bottom of the blackest pit and can't see a way out.)

Each case is different and I for one would rather he was alive to face his trial but also on a humane level I would rather he was alive than dead.

It is possible that he could be on 'hunger strike' to bring attention to himself and his situation either as part of his 'illness' demanding attention or because he believes he is innocent (although that doesnt see, to be the case).

The former makes it easier to see why he could have been sectioned.

If he just wanted to commit suicide there are many ways to do it even in prison as the papers will show us.

[GarrysPhrogg]

hang on a minute...............
Isnt the man accused of murdering his daughter!!! If he REALLY wants to die, well Im pretty sure he could think of other ways of doing it that would be quick and easy and it's not feckin rocket science, and if I was that girls mother I would want him keeping alive as long as possible and he would be made to suffer "the feckin b-astard"...............

Im sure i remember reading some time ago about this case and the bloke or daughter being a biker or sometrhing

[Shep]

The thing about hunger strikes is...well it takes a while to starve to death, unless you're nearly there already.
That gives plenty of time for publicity, appeals, public sympathy etc.
(Or am I being cynical?)
If this guy really wants to die, I've got 10 foot of rope he can have.

[GarrysPhrogg]

The thing about hunger strikes is...well it takes a while to starve to death, unless you're nearly there already.
That gives plenty of time for publicity, appeals, public sympathy etc.
(Or am I being cynical?)
If this guy really wants to die, I've got 10 foot of rope he can have.

agrees with shep

[Shep]

Then again, perhaps he does want to die, for whatever reason.

OK.Sorry, but I can see there are times and situations when there's nothing else to do.
Personally. I'll fight to the end, (back to euthanasia thread,) but if he really wants to go, then let him.


Just wonder, if he's been sectioned, how can they try him as an accussed criminal at some later date? Double standards?