Yesterday (1st December 2015) the English Court of Protection gave a judgement about a patients right to refuse medical treatment.
The case concerned a woman of 50 years old, who had been receiving kidney dialysis following a failed suicide attempt. The woman no longer wanted to have the treatment. Kings College Hospital, in London, challenged her right to refuse the treatment. In other words, they wanted the enforce treatment, regardless of whether the patient wanted it.
On BBC's Today programme this morning, Clive Coleman, their legal correspondent, quoted part of Justice McDonald's judgement. It is as follows:
"An individual with mental capacity is entitled to decide whether or not to accept medical treatment. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient."
Clive Coleman said that Justice McDonald went to to quote from another judgement on this matter, which is even clearer on the matter.
"This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown, or even non-existent".
So the law in England appears to be absolutely clear. Conventional medicine cannot force treatment on patients. Treatments cannot be mandatory.
The arrogance of the conventional medical establishment is not restricted to Kings College Hospital. I have raised the issue on several occasions before, not least with moves that have been made (and are being made, especially in the USA and Australia) to make certain vaccinations mandatory. I also mentioned it when discussing the case of Ashya King.
The case concerned a woman of 50 years old, who had been receiving kidney dialysis following a failed suicide attempt. The woman no longer wanted to have the treatment. Kings College Hospital, in London, challenged her right to refuse the treatment. In other words, they wanted the enforce treatment, regardless of whether the patient wanted it.
On BBC's Today programme this morning, Clive Coleman, their legal correspondent, quoted part of Justice McDonald's judgement. It is as follows:
"An individual with mental capacity is entitled to decide whether or not to accept medical treatment. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient."
Clive Coleman said that Justice McDonald went to to quote from another judgement on this matter, which is even clearer on the matter.
"This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown, or even non-existent".
So the law in England appears to be absolutely clear. Conventional medicine cannot force treatment on patients. Treatments cannot be mandatory.
The arrogance of the conventional medical establishment is not restricted to Kings College Hospital. I have raised the issue on several occasions before, not least with moves that have been made (and are being made, especially in the USA and Australia) to make certain vaccinations mandatory. I also mentioned it when discussing the case of Ashya King.
- The conventional medical establishment wants to impose their treatments on patients.
- They do not recognise patients who refuse conventional treatment because they believe them to be ineffective and dangerous.
- Regardless of the evidence, they continue to refuse to accept that their treatment can be ineffective and dangerous, and that there are safer, more effective alternatives to what they have to offer.
So we need to be aware of English law in this matter, which is absolutely clear. We must make sure that conventional doctors, in their arrogance, do not assume that they have any rights over our bodies, our health, or the treatment we wish to have for any illness we have, or might have.
And equally important, we must be aware of any plan or attempt the conventional medical establishment, and their supporters, might have to change the law on patient choice, and health freedom.
Those living in the USA, Australia, and the other countries that are facing mandatory treatment should work towards ensuring that their law provides people with similar safeguards.
