Underweight 16 year old to be separated from mother and force fed by tube rules UK High Court - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ironman17;44432491]I have a strong suspicion it does. Also Christ on a bike, seriously this shit should not be happening in a country like this.[/QUOTE] It's a medical intervention taken to save somebody's life, because they are not in a fit mental state to make important decisions about their own well being. Most people who are sectioned under the mental health act do not want to be in hospital either, but it is the best place for them be, both for their safety and for the safety of others.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44432492]The actual insertion process is relatively painless. However, it will be uncomfortable to leave in for very long, and you often have to leave it in for several days when it is used.[/QUOTE] You got me curious. Could the tube cause hemorrages in any part of the body? (If so, what would be the standard procedure?) [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] woo 444

[QUOTE=Lazore;44432794]Force feeding is what they do to some prisoners in guantanamo bay prison Mos Def, the rapper, tried it out to show how freaking horrible it is. [video=youtube;z6ACE-BBPRs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ACE-BBPRs[/video][/QUOTE] this is standard gitmo treatment though; I've had a tube in me before and yeah, it sucks, but it isn't nearly this bad.

[QUOTE=Saza;44433168]this is standard gitmo treatment though; I've had a tube in me before and yeah, it sucks, but it isn't nearly this bad.[/QUOTE] I think he was exaggerating to try and fight against the Gitmo force-feeding stuff that was going on around the time the video was made. I can't remember why all the prisoners were refusing to eat though.

[QUOTE=Lazore;44432794]Force feeding is what they do to some prisoners in guantanamo bay prison Mos Def, the rapper, tried it out to show how freaking horrible it is. [video=youtube;z6ACE-BBPRs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ACE-BBPRs[/video][/QUOTE] It is NOT that bad. Plus the prisoners at Guantanmo bay intentionally get themselves force fed. They're on a nutritional point system everyday (so they need a certain amount of points to not be fed). They know what points they need so they'll eat EVERYTHING but stay below the threshold because getting e-feeds is like a badge of honor for them. Also some prisoners even put their e-feeds in themselves!

[QUOTE=Reagy;44432550]All I can say is deal with it you anorexic idiot, you're gonna kill yourself unless they do this and they wont allow it. The faster she can get over her eating disorder the quicker they can remove the tube.[/QUOTE] If you took the time to read the article, you'd also find out that she was, on average, vomiting [b]thirty times a day[/b]. If that doesn't scream "physical illness", I don't know what does. But it sure as hell doesn't look like anorexia. Garry, if you take just one user suggestion this year, please reintroduce the Bad Reading rating.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;44433288]It is NOT that bad. Plus the prisoners at Guantanmo bay intentionally get themselves force fed. They're on a nutritional point system everyday (so they need a certain amount of points to not be fed). They know what points they need so they'll eat EVERYTHING but stay below the threshold because getting e-feeds is like a badge of honor for them. Also some prisoners even put their e-feeds in themselves![/QUOTE] In the case of Guantanamo bay forcefeeding is an egregious breach of human rights and the Declaration of Tokyo, with the US acting as if it was the UK back in 1913. Both the UN, WMA and over 250 doctors (from many countries, including France, Germany, the US and UK) have denounced it for the way it is carried out in Guantanamo. Forcefeeding a rational person with unimpaired judgement is flat out unethical and should not be carried out by any physician according to the WMA and is torture, as according to the UNHRC. There is no defence for forcefeeding in Guantanamo Bay at all, especially when the US wouldn't let UN investigators in. It is used as a tool of torture there, and is not done with clinical care, it's used to try to punish people who make the conscious decision to hunger strike. It's not seen as a "badge of honour" so much as it is being seen as standing for their rights whilst they are tortured illegally. In this case it is a genuine medical procedure being carried out with the utmost care on a patient who has clearly got impaired judgement, is not thinking rationally and has a clear mental condition which is leading to her starving herself, and it is necessary to feed her. In Guantanamo's case, it's done to try to intimidate the prisoners, hell, they even remove the tubes afterwards.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44432482]Unfortunately, it does. [B]And it isn't pleasant when it occurs.[/B][/QUOTE] I would imagine.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;44433662]In the case of Guantanamo bay forcefeeding is an egregious breach of human rights and the Declaration of Tokyo, with the US acting as if it was the UK back in 1913. Both the UN, WMA and over 250 doctors (from many countries, including France, Germany, the US and UK) have denounced it for the way it is carried out in Guantanamo. Forcefeeding a rational person with unimpaired judgement is flat out unethical and should not be carried out by any physician according to the WMA and is torture, as according to the UNHRC. There is no defence for forcefeeding in Guantanamo Bay at all, especially when the US wouldn't let UN investigators in. It is used as a tool of torture there, and is not done with clinical care, it's used to try to punish people who make the conscious decision to hunger strike. It's not seen as a "badge of honour" so much as it is being seen as standing for their rights whilst they are tortured illegally. In this case it is a genuine medical procedure being carried out with the utmost care on a patient who has clearly got impaired judgement, is not thinking rationally and has a clear mental condition which is leading to her starving herself, and it is necessary to feed her. In Guantanamo's case, it's done to try to intimidate the prisoners, hell, they even remove the tubes afterwards.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm heree to tell you what you think you know about Gitmo is wrong. The e-feeds aren't done with clinical care? They're administered by freaking nurses. Yeah! Believe it or not we have medical staff in Gitmo that do medical things! Secondly, these motherfuckers will eat hamburgers and chips and shit all day to their point threshold. So we'll say to them "You need to eat this one small thing so that you get your full nutrition for the day" and they'll deny it so we have to e-feed them. These guys aren't hunger striking, they're doing it because it IS a badge of honor for these inmates. It makes them seem tough to their fellow inmates because you don't want to be the inmate that isn't getting fed and is being compliant with the Americans.

[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;44433644]If you took the time to read the article, you'd also find out that she was, on average, vomiting [b]thirty times a day[/b]. If that doesn't scream "physical illness", I don't know what does. But it sure as hell doesn't look like anorexia. Garry, if you take just one user suggestion this year, please reintroduce the Bad Reading rating.[/QUOTE] The article also stated that there was no "organic" reason she should vomit, and that they concluded it was psychological. So it's not a physical illness. Sounds like an extreme case of bulimia to me.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44432331]As a physician, I personally find it very hard to understand this sort of reaction. Even an average doctor, hell, nursing staff, can easily, and practically painlessly insert a Ryle's tube into a child's stomach. I myself do it several times a week. Whether or not you think it's torture has no bearing on if it actually is torture. Do you want your kid to live or die? this is the time you start asking blunt questions, because by golly, there's no point beating about the bush with fancy words.[/QUOTE] She's obviously an anorexic. It's a massive intrusion of personal privacy. I don't know if you have experience with anorexics (I do), and the reason most people purge or simply refuse to eat or gain weight is because they often live in environments where their parents control a lot about their life, and controlling their body is one thing they can control. Being court ordered to have a feeding tube put in is both humiliating and takes a lot of control away from her.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;44432482]Unfortunately, it does. And it isn't pleasant when it occurs.[/QUOTE] "Verbal Diarrhea"

I wonder how tall she is - i'm like 154 cm tall and weigh 35 kilo, too. I'm not anorexic, just shitty genetics, i can eat everything, everytime i fucking want without gaining weight :v:

[QUOTE=DrogenViech;44434420]I wonder how tall she is - i'm like 154 cm tall and weigh 35 kilo, too. I'm not anorexic, just shitty genetics, i can eat everything, everytime i fucking want without gaining weight :v:[/QUOTE] People who say this usually still eat shit all but think they eat a lot because they don't know what a lot is. IDK if Germany has socialised health care but go see a doctor and get them to help you get some weight on you, you will feel better, be healthier and you'll also be more attractive. [editline]3rd April 2014[/editline] A bit of fat on you will make you fill out more and have a better shape, especially if you are a chick.

[QUOTE=DrogenViech;44434420]I wonder how tall she is - i'm like 154 cm tall and weigh 35 kilo, too. I'm not anorexic, just shitty genetics, i can eat everything, everytime i fucking want without gaining weight :v:[/QUOTE] Everyone who says this that i've encountered IRL just eats in very unregular intervals, skipping meals and eating more later and thus thinks he can eat everything. Self betrayal.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;44434005]Jesus christ you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm heree to tell you what you think you know about Gitmo is wrong. The e-feeds aren't done with clinical care? They're administered by freaking nurses. Yeah! Believe it or not we have medical staff in Gitmo that do medical things! Secondly, these motherfuckers will eat hamburgers and chips and shit all day to their point threshold. So we'll say to them "You need to eat this one small thing so that you get your full nutrition for the day" and they'll deny it so we have to e-feed them. These guys aren't hunger striking, they're doing it because it IS a badge of honor for these inmates. It makes them seem tough to their fellow inmates because you don't want to be the inmate that isn't getting fed and is being compliant with the Americans.[/QUOTE] From a medical ethics point of view, it is simply wrong to force feed prisoners. If they are of sound mind and don't eat, that's their choice, and feeding via nasogastric tube is not necessary as per the Declaration of Tokyo and the Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers by the World Medical Association. All the physician is required to do is to inform them that it is not healthy and why. Patient autonomy is key for a patient of sound mind. You do not "have to e-feed them" you [b]choose[/b] to, as is indicated by the fact that inmates are restrained for the procedure and are kept restrained for a period of time afterwards so as to prevent it from being vomited. It's as simple as "if you don't eat what we consider enough food, we'll force you to eat". [quote=Declaration of Tokyo]Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other independent physician. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the physician to the prisoner.[/quote] [url]http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c18/index.html[/url] [quote=Declaration of Malta]Respect for autonomy. Physicians should respect individuals' autonomy. This can involve difficult assessments as hunger strikers' true wishes may not be as clear as they appear. Any decisions lack moral force if made involuntarily by use of threats, peer pressure or coercion. Hunger strikers should not be forcibly given treatment they refuse. Forced feeding contrary to an informed and voluntary refusal is unjustifiable. Artificial feeding with the hunger striker's explicit or implied consent is ethically acceptable.[/quote] [url]http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/h31/[/url] I'm not using country based associations, the WMA is literally one of the biggest voices in medical ethics. Patient autonomy is key, except for in extenuating circumstances of impaired judgement and incapacity (such as the poor girl in this case) and to breach it is an abomination and abhorrent.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;44434690]From a medical ethics point of view, it is simply wrong to force feed prisoners. If they are of sound mind and don't eat, that's their choice, and feeding via nasogastric tube is not necessary as per the Declaration of Tokyo and the Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers by the World Medical Association. All the physician is required to do is to inform them that it is not healthy and why. Patient autonomy is key for a patient of sound mind. You do not "have to e-feed them" you [b]choose[/b] to, as is indicated by the fact that inmates are restrained for the procedure and are kept restrained for a period of time afterwards so as to prevent it from being vomited. It's as simple as "if you don't eat what we consider enough food, we'll force you to eat". [url]http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c18/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/h31/[/url] I'm not using country based associations, the WMA is literally one of the biggest voices in medical ethics. Patient autonomy is key, except for in extenuating circumstances of impaired judgement and incapacity (such as the poor girl in this case) and to breach it is an abomination and abhorrent.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't waste time arguing with the kind of person that supports the existence of Guantanamo Bay, you probably won't get anywhere.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;44432624]I thnk you're showing a lot of misunderstanding towards anorexia. It is a severe mental illness. It isnt a state of mind or a a choice, do you think any sane person would literally starve themselves to death, and still see themselves as fat while literally being skin and bones. [editline]3rd April 2014[/editline] Its literally the same as telling someone to "get over" depression.[/QUOTE] yeah people with depression can still realize they have depression and seek help if they feel like committing suicide, they don't go "they just don't understand me as a person" unless they are actually idiots too. I've felt like killing myself, realized that was stupid, and went to my school psychiatrist. It's not hard to realize that some thoughts aren't good for you and that sometimes you need help.

[QUOTE=DrogenViech;44434420]I wonder how tall she is - i'm like 154 cm tall and weigh 35 kilo, too. I'm not anorexic, just shitty genetics, i can eat everything, everytime i fucking want without gaining weight :v:[/QUOTE] Hope you mean pounds, or you're like 15 years old/a midget, because 35 kilograms is extremely underweight

[QUOTE=Terminutter;44434690]From a medical ethics point of view, it is simply wrong to force feed prisoners. If they are of sound mind and don't eat, that's their choice, and feeding via nasogastric tube is not necessary as per the Declaration of Tokyo and the Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers by the World Medical Association. All the physician is required to do is to inform them that it is not healthy and why. Patient autonomy is key for a patient of sound mind. You do not "have to e-feed them" you [b]choose[/b] to, as is indicated by the fact that inmates are restrained for the procedure and are kept restrained for a period of time afterwards so as to prevent it from being vomited. It's as simple as "if you don't eat what we consider enough food, we'll force you to eat". [url]http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c18/index.html[/url] [url]http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/h31/[/url] I'm not using country based associations, the WMA is literally one of the biggest voices in medical ethics. Patient autonomy is key, except for in extenuating circumstances of impaired judgement and incapacity (such as the poor girl in this case) and to breach it is an abomination and abhorrent.[/QUOTE] Go to gitmo, come back, then talk.

[QUOTE=Reagy;44432550]All I can say is deal with it you anorexic idiot, you're gonna kill yourself unless they do this and they wont allow it. The faster she can get over her eating disorder the quicker they can remove the tube.[/QUOTE] Uhm, people have the right to die. Suicide isn't/shouldn't be a crime. [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=latin_geek;44436062]Hope you mean pounds, or you're like 15 years old/a midget, because 35 kilograms is extremely underweight[/QUOTE] 35 pounds at 15yo is dead. 35 kilo is at least 75lbs, which isn't dead, just really underweight.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;44432323]like this [img]http://i.imgur.com/hpj1KTX.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Good god that looks painful.

[QUOTE=Reagy;44432550]All I can say is deal with it you anorexic idiot, you're gonna kill yourself unless they do this and they wont allow it. The faster she can get over her eating disorder the quicker they can remove the tube.[/QUOTE] how compassionate of you

[QUOTE=Reagy;44432550]All I can say is deal with it you anorexic idiot, you're gonna kill yourself unless they do this and they wont allow it. The faster she can get over her eating disorder the quicker they can remove the tube.[/QUOTE] yeah what a dumbass for having a mental illness right

[QUOTE=Coment;44433148]You got me curious. Could the tube cause hemorrages in any part of the body? (If so, what would be the standard procedure?) [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] woo 444[/QUOTE] Truth be told, there's no real chance of that happening unless you were very heavy handed with the insertion, which would probably damage the oesophagus by tearing the lining, and that's going to require surgical repairs very often to prevent strictures. If you leave it in for too long, you can sometimes observe infections, especially if it was done with less than aseptic precautions, and this also predisposes to haemorrhages. And the biggest caveat is with patients who have had oesophageal resection and end to end suturing - if you pass it through a fresh anastomosis site, there's going to be trouble. Leave that kind of thing to the more experienced doctors.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;44434951]I wouldn't waste time arguing with the kind of person that supports the existence of Guantanamo Bay, you probably won't get anywhere.[/QUOTE] I recognize Gitmo isn't popular, but I've yet to hear a compelling alternative. It is certainly a shitty solution, don't get me wrong, but I can't for the life of me produce an alternative that doesn't make a mockery of the justice system or result in mass executions.

[QUOTE=GunFox;44437238]but I can't for the life of me produce an alternative that doesn't make a mockery of the justice system or result in mass executions.[/QUOTE] Well not abusing the prisoners, releasing them if they're innocent and treating them like they have rights is a good start. The use of North Korean torture techniques is also a good thing to get rid of.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44437288]Well not abusing the prisoners, releasing them if they're innocent and treating them like they have rights is a good start. The use of North Korean torture techniques is also a good thing to get rid of.[/QUOTE] Abuse has largely been addressed. I don't see reports of it and the military has no interest in abusing prisoners anyways. It garners them nothing and brings about bad press. The military acts with purpose. They have little to no legal rights. They are not PoW's and they fight for forces that do not abide by the Geneva conventions. People do get released. It is just a slow shitty system. Of the roughly 800 that have spent time there, only 150 remain. Of which, some are persona non grata, and we literally couldn't release them even if we wanted because their home nations have revoked their citizenship. They have no citizenship anywhere.

[QUOTE=GunFox;44437349]they fight for forces that do not abide by the Geneva conventions. [/QUOTE] Why do you presume that most of the people in there belong to terrorist organizations?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44437430]Why do you presume that most of the people in there belong to terrorist organizations?[/QUOTE] Who said anything about terrorist organizations? The conventions are fairly involved and are not followed by basically any terrorist or insurgent group. I don't necessarily fault them for this, mind you, I wouldn't either, but it is how the conventions work. Technically speaking they are under presidential orders to treat them in keeping with the conventions, but that isn't actually required by the conventions under the current circumstances.