In my torts class, I often compare the different approaches and doctrines in the United States and the United Kingdom. One of the most pronounced is the position and authority of physicians on issues like consent and malpractice. This week produced a particularly striking example. British doctors are seeking to take a 19-year-old critically ill female patient off the intensive care despite her objections and those of her parents. Unlike most such cases, the woman known only as “ST” is conscious and communicative. Yet, the doctors argue that she is not being realistic about her chances of survival from a rare disorder. Now a British court has agreed and ordered that she can be placed on end-of-life care against her will.
ST is suffering from a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative. The case has similarities to that of Charlie Gard, an infant who was removed from life support at the insistence of doctors despite objections from the parents. The Gard family was seeking to take Charlie to the United States for experimental treatment.
ST has been in the ICU for the past year, requiring a ventilator and a feeding tube. She also requires regular dialysis due to chronic kidney damage from her disease. She wants to be allowed to travel to Canada for an experimental treatment but the doctors oppose the plan and say that she is not accepting the realities of her terminal illness. They say that she is “actively dying” without any hope of resuming life outside of intensive care.
Her deeply religious family have spent their entire life savings on her care and has complained that a “transparency order” requested by the hospital barred their ability to give details on the case to help raise public funds.
What is so remarkable about this case is that it is not an infant or a comatose patient. The court found that ST “is able to communicate reasonably well with her doctors with assistance from her mother and, on occasion, speech therapists.” Moreover, two psychiatrists testified that she is mentally competent to make decisions about her own care.
Despite all the difficulties which currently confront her, ST is able to communicate reasonably well with her doctors with assistance from her mother and, on occasion, speech therapists. Over the course of the last week she has engaged in two separate capacity assessments. I heard evidence from two consultant psychiatrists whose conclusions in relation to her capacity in both domains are set out in full written reports. . . .
She has been described by those who know and love her as “a fighter”. That is how she sees herself. At the heart of the issues in this case is what ST and her family perceive to be a ray of hope in the form of an experimental nucleoside treatment outside the United Kingdom which might offer her hope of an improved quality of life, albeit a life which is likely to end prematurely in terms of a normal life expectancy. She has told her doctors that she wants to do everything she can to extend her life. She said to Dr C, one of the psychiatrists who visited her last week, “This is my wish. I want to die trying to live. We have to try everything”. [Court’s emphasis] Whilst she recognises that she may not benefit from further treatment, she is resistant to any attempt to move to a regime of palliative care because she wants to stay alive long enough to be able to travel to Canada or North America where there is at least the prospect that she may be accepted as part of a clinical trial. . . .
ST is well aware that she has been offered a very poor prognosis by her doctors. She acknowledges that they have told her that she will die but she does not believe them. She points to her recovery from previous life-threatening episodes whilst she has been a patient at the intensive care unit. She believes she has the resilience and the strength to stay alive for long enough to undergo treatment abroad and she wishes the court to acknowledge her right to make that decision for herself.
Nevertheless, the judge found that she is mentally incapable of making decisions for herself because “she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.” The court appears to reject her ability to make this decision because she is making the wrong decision:
In my judgment . . . ST is unable to make a decision for herself in relation to her future medical treatment, including the proposed move to palliative care, because she does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors. Absent that belief, she cannot use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision. This is a very different position from the act of making an unwise, but otherwise capacitous, decision. An unwise decision involves the juxtaposition of both an objective overview of the wisdom of a decision to act one way or another and the subjective reasons informing that person’s decision to elect to take a particular course. However unwise, the decision must nevertheless involve that essential understanding of the information and the use, weighing and balancing of the information in order to reach a decision. In ST’s case, an essential element of the process of decision-making is missing because she is unable to use or weigh information which has been shown to be both reliable and true.
Accordingly, the court ruled that decisions about ST’s further care should be determined by the Court of Protection based on an assessment of her best interests. Her “best interest,” according to the doctors, is to die.
Thus, the courts have declared that ST cannot choose to continue life-extending treatment and can be forced into palliative care against her will. The logic of the decision is chilling. The court is told that ST has cognitive and communicative abilities to make such decisions. However, because the court disagrees with her desire to continue to fight to live, she is treated as effectively incompetent. It seems like the judicial version of Henry Ford’s promise that customers could pick any color car so long as it is black.
Here is the opinion: In the Matter of ST
Headlines recently proclaimed that eight of Trump’s “fake” electors accepted immunity deals. Of course, in reporting the news, the corporate outlets all missed the real story — that the electors’ testimony failed to incriminate anyone, including Trump, and that the county prosecutors engaged in massive misconduct. Equally appalling, however, was the corrupt media’s continued peddling of the “fake electors” narrative.
There were no “fake” electors. There were contingent Republican electors named consistent with legal precedent to preserve the still ongoing legal challenges to the validity of Georgia’s certified vote.
The Hawaii scenario in 1960 mirrors in every material respect the facts on the ground in Georgia on Dec. 14, 2020
https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/15/the-lefts-2020-fake-electors-narrative-is-fake-news/
Posting the same BS, or linking to sites which post BS, does not make it any less BS.
“linking to sites which post BS”
Sammy, I didn’t post from the Washington Post or the New York Times. Can you tell us the difference between what happened in Hawaii, the elector’s dispute between Kennedy and Nixon, and what happened in Georgia?
You are long on Stupid opinions, but dumb on facts.
S Meyer, the witness statement set out in Fleetwood’s essay argues persuasively that the Georgian and Hawaiian contingent electors’ conduct was similar in all legally relevant respects.
The key difference is that in 1960 the recount was still going on when they had to meet, results of the election were still unknown, and both set of electors were open and public about what they were doing. In 2020 the recounts were done, the results were fully certified, the legitimate legal challenges had run their course, and they did it in secret.
In short, in 1960 it was done for valid reasons, and in 2020 it was done for fraudulent reasons.
” the recount was still going on”
More BS and deflection. A difference without a difference.
“In short, in 1960 :
In short ATS is making things up with no basis under law. His next argument will be that Nixon was wearing a red tie, and Kennedy a blue.
EXCLUSIVE: Fani Willis Possesses Evidence Exonerating Georgia’s Alternate Electors
https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/01/exclusive-fani-willis-possesses-evidence-exonerating-georgias-alternate-electors/
So much for equal protection under the law in Georgia.
“Fani Willis Possesses Evidence . . .”
No, she doesn’t.
For the Left, “evidence” is that which satisfies a desire (in this case, criminalize the opposition). If something thwarts a desire, it’s not evidence.
S.M.: Get with the program.
Sam, thanks for the agreement via sarcasm. Fanni Willis possesses evidence that she is hiding from the court. She is supposed to uphold the law, but she doesn’t. Put her in jail. She is illegally trying to take people’s lives away.
S Meyer, this is the article I referred to earlier. The headline does not do it justice. Fleetwood shows that there was nothing illegal about the actions of the contingent electors, and includes the expert witness statement of a constitutional law professor to that effect. The statement demonstrates why the conduct of the contingent electors was lawful, reasonable, necessary and consistent with the Hawaiian precedent in 1960, given the unresolved legal dispute Trump filed in Georgia.
Daniel, I didn’t know this was the article you referred to us, even after I found it. I searched for a bit more information and posted this link instead. Most do not track things down, so it would be helpful to link such articles.
I didn’t entirely read the article, but I read enough to realize the sh!t ATS is pushing.
Some of the finer points are hard for non-lawyers to understand, so they can be missed unless well-grounded attornies lead the way.
S. Meyer and Daniel: I am the one who originally cited the 1960 case. SM, you are correct regarding the nuances, and there are palpable/discernible differences. And I appreciate that you both refer to “alternate” and “contingent” in your descriptions of the electors. The MEDIA and the left have been unrelenting in their use of the term “fake.”
According to this ruling, anyone who disagrees with the health care experts is incompetent to make a health care decision. This means that, not only can the government withhold certain health care treatments, it can also force people to undergo certain treatments, such as vaccinations. And, of course, there is no reason to limit the ruling to health care decisions. People could be forced, for example, to follow the investment advice of the experts to put their money into ESG-compliant investments or, perhaps, follow the advice of nutrition experts and eat only plant-based foods. It looks like a glorious future for the Brits. And we, too, can look forward to the same future if we continue the slide into socialism.
As in sausage and laws, one should not look too closely into the making of experts.
The young woman is hanging on to life but British doctors have decided that she is not worthy of further life-saving effort. They are playing God.
That is a result of National Health Insurance. Healthcare becomes part of the state, and physicians work for the government, not the patient. Experimental treatment exists elsewhere, at no cost to Britain, except British pride, placed before human life.
“. . . ST’s further care should be determined by the Court of Protection . . .”
Remind me, again, how socialized medicine does not include “death panels.”
Sam, you have a good memory. IPAB Independent Payment Advisory Board
The loons can only provide quick quips, but have no memory for their failings in the past.
US capitalist insurance companies do the same thing every day. The initial source of funding is not relevant.
Not true. You have been pushing to make it true, but to date have only gotten part way.
The patient is supposed to buy their own insurance and pay their own bills. The doctor works for the patient not the government.
Your way leads to government deciding matters of life and death. Stalin didn’t have to be that deceitful. He would say what he wanted and then kill the people.
“US capitalist insurance companies do the same thing every day.”
Sure. Just as voluntarily trading money for beer is the “same thing” as holding up a liquor store.
Until you acknowledge the distinction between political power (which is the government’s use of physical force) and economic power (which essence is choice), you will continue to conflate two fundamentally different situations.
And, yes, the “initial source of funding” is everything. One is a voluntary contract between you and the insurance company, or between you and the health care provider. The other (government) is brute physical force: First, government forcibly confiscates your money. Then it uses its police powers to decree how that money will be spent.
OT: I recommend Shawn Fleetwood’s essay about the alternative electors in the Sept 1 Federalist on Real Clear Politics today. He shows that criminalising this conduct is completely wrong, in the light of law and precedent.
The “evidence” does not exonerate them at all. This is what they submitted:
https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/ga-full.pdf
That is a fraudulent document that was submitted though official channels.
Also read this. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/big-differences-between-1960-hawaii-electors-2020-ga-trump-electors
The British appear to show more compassion and humanity for convicted murderer than those in need of hospitalization and medical rehabilitation?
Yet the British Lefties will invariably accuse the American system of Medical Care and Human Rights of being cold hearted and wrong headed.
One thing for sure….the British Leftists are not much different than our own….except perhaps in accent and dialect.
Wait a second. In the last paragraph ST became JK, I don’t get it. In any case God decides when the end of our lives will be, not the UK government so why are they acting in that capacity. If the parents want to try everything at their expense, what’s the problem? I honestly don’t get it.
It is not, end of care, But Judges here in the States have ruled Schools can deny Parents the right to know if their Child is considering changing genders. Lefists are demanding minors have the power to make life altering medical decisions. Some judges have found minors have that constitutional right. (but refuse to reference the constitution.
The question isn’t “How much is a life worth.” The real questions is “Who decides how much a life is worth.”
If you or your employer has signed a health insurance contract, you know that answer. You know what is covered, what is not. Single payer is just a vague government promise. In the end, everyone wants unlimited healthcare for no/minimal cost, no system will provide that
Here you’d just die because you exhausted your funds.
What do you think happened there?
Very shallow thinking.
Do you not see that the fig leaf they’re using is that she is not actually competent to decide for herself? Of course it’s that her care is too expensive. The piece days that the family is complaining (a hideously understated word) that they haven’t been allowed to give out details of her case so they can fundraise.
“Here you’d just die because you exhausted your funds.”
Sure, because there’s no such thing as a “fund me” campaign. Or the *voluntary* charity of friends and family. Or a payment plan.
But when you’re bent on smearing capitalism, all such options simply do not exist.
Imagine a private citizen preventing an ill relative from getting medical care that they repeatedly asked for and could afford, as their condition worsened and they finally died. That would be at least a charge of negligent homicide and perhaps first degree murder.
Other than private versus government action, the difference is…what, exactly?
No one is preventing, the parents could pay. The government is not paying for any more care.
But the government has made it near impossible for them to raise money. Just another example of government playing God except nowadays it isn’t cradle to grave. It’s womb to grave.
I am sure this case is complex and the public will never know all the details but on its face it is disturbing. If she wishes to pursue continued treatment and if money and resources are the issue, why is she barred from raising funds?
We are at a crossroads in modern medicine. Those who hold the purse strings will arrive at a place where treatment will be denied to older patients and those who are chronically ill. It starts with a view of human life.
Abortion, especially late term abortion and euthanasia are the capstone events that have gained acceptance and will continue down the slippery slope then what is next? The crippled, and the “useless eaters?” When life has lost dignity and the medical elite can decide who lives and who dies we will have crossed the Rubicon. Dare touch or disturb an eagle egg and it is severe fines and imprisonment. Do the same with a neonate and it is celebrated.
Extreme climate activists want the earths population severely reduced. Our own Vice President stated this fact in a recent speech.
If it is medical resources at the heart of the matter then why are children being surgically mutilated and set on a course of expensive lifelong medical treatment and experimental drugs that will cost a million or more per patient? Why were doctors and renowned medical researchers who did not tow the narrative silenced during the COVID debacle?
There are a growing number of disturbing atrocities occurring in the mismanaged of medical institutions, especially its priorities and views on the dignity of life. It is ripe for tyranny.
The slippery slope leads to the abyss and we are headed there. I believe we are beyond the point of no return. You properly have used the noun atrocities. Like 1930s and early 40s Germany, we are sanctioning modern medicine’s atrocities. Remember the 1976 movie “Logan’s Run?” We’re on the doorstop of that dystopia.
Dare touch or disturb an eagle egg
It’s my understanding that it’s illegal in the US to collect a fallen feather.
Cult of nature.
She is an expenditure, not a person. No one ever signs a legally enforceable contract with single payer. It is very whimsical.
EM points out that “late term abortion and euthanasia are the capstone events” that have led us to the slippery slope. Abortion in any form was the first step of dehumanization. Easy peasy after that and with each step we are closer to being a diabolical, inhumane society. Actually, we’re there.
Crime against humanity.
Third Reich criminality.
It appears that the judge is the incompetent one in this case.
The wonders of socialized medicine!
Moron
Better than no health care, try a little critical thinking rather than a trite response
Oh, so she is receiving healthcare. That is a relief, after this article I thought she was being denied healthcare. Good thing progressive clowns such as yourself are here to set the record straight.
“Better than no health care,”
“a trite response”
Irony Is just NEVER lost on you lefties, is it??
Apparently, you just didnt care for his critical thinking, so you resorted to name calling. Its pretty obvious that what he was saying is that, in socialized medicine, the government decides what care you do or dont receive. In this instance, even to the point who lives or dies.
I’m certainly not against some types of socialized medicine, but maybe you should try some of that “critical thinking” yourself.
So apparently the UK docs have replaced “do no harm” with “okay, as long as it doesn’t cost that much”. More evidence of the decline of the West
Europeans just seem to need tyranny. They just want to be free to pick the form.