Charlie gard vs Neil Conway

[Kattatty87]

Please note before I post this I am not personally attacking any medical staff, parents, wives etc etc

So this has been playing on my mind. Whilst Charlie Gards parents have been desperately trying to save their son, doctors say he has no quality of life and that it "would be kinder to let him slip away"

Meanwhile Neil Conway who has motor neurone disease has been to the high court to ask for permission to die with dignity and has been refused.

Therefore I raise the issue at what point do we stop having control or parental control over decisions made on our own health and life!

Are the doctors "playing god" with these 2 people's lives.

Why when they both have life limiting conditions are the outcomes so different?

I'm genuinely interested in people's opinions

Links below on both cases

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/17/charlie-gards-parents-optimistic-new-brain-scan/

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/man-terminally-motor-neurone-disease-loses-court-bid-change/

Anyone with the mental capacity to do so (see Mental Capacity Act 2004) has the right to refuse medical treatment, even if such refusal results in our death. However, mental capacity has to be assessed. Young children would not be deemed to have the mental capacity to refuse medical treatment and therefore decisions are taken in their best interests.

It is a fairly straightforward concept and I recommend a reading of the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice, which is available online.

Whilst anyone with capacity can refuse treatment, this is a very different concept to actively seeking to end someone's life and different laws apply.

A best interests decision will have been made in the CG case. In the case of offering/withdrawing medical treatment the decision-maker (where someone lacks capacity either through age or mental incapability for whatever reason) will be the person(s) responsible for that treatment.

No-one, in this country, can make a decision on behalf of someone else regarding medical treatment unless the person in question, whilst they had mental capacity, signed a Lasting Power of Attorney specifically for Health and Welfare. Family/parents are always consulted however, and their views will form part of the best interests decision process.

Parental responsibility is something else of course, but parents have to act in the best interests of their children, and if it is felt by health care professionals that they are not doing so then there are mechanisms in place whereby health care professionals/social services can intervene.

Noel Conway can indeed refuse treatment and suffocate when motor neurone no longer allows him to breathe. He will remain fully mentally capable and has full sensation.

Same as Tony Nicklinson who had to refuse food to escape after more civilised ways were refused.

Motor neurone, stroke or any of these horrors can affect anyone. Those who wish to live with them should be supported to their last breath. Those who do not should be allowed to take that last breath when they choose and without pain.

And ALL the organisations that are stopping this have religious backing.

I am aware of the MHA 2004 and have studied it at university. As he does have capacity I think it bothers me more.

I have looked after people who are detained under the MHA for the very reason that if they weren't they would be a danger to themselves and others. I absolutely agree that every care decision made on their behalf should be to keep them alive and well.

The thing that bothers me as pp has mentioned is the lack of dignity for Neil.

This is the issue I am struggling with:
How can it be right that people with capacity are allowed to painfully starve themselves to death instead of being allowed to peacefully pass away when the time is right surrounded by family and friends who love them?

I don't under stand how if they are deemed to have capacity that they are not allowed to make this decision.

It's not a decision that he has evidently made lightly or a snap decision on diagnosis (in which case I would fully support doctors) but a carefully made decision with his family's support.

I guess it's just a heartbreaking situation for both families for very different reasons

It's the mental capacity act that applies in these situations (for adults) not the mental health act.

The mental capacity act and the mental health act are two very different pieces of law, Katta. I'm not sure why you are conflating the two. You can be detained under the MHA and still have capacity for some medical decisions. If you've cared for psychiatric inpatients that's the MHA in force, not the capacity act.
As I would expect someone who works there should already know.

Bless that boy and his parents. I wonder if they will ever have the awareness that their behaviour has been rather undignified over this whole sorry affair?

Since Anthony Bland (injured in the hills borough disaster) the removal of life supports systems is allowed. Treatment can be withdrawn, it's seem as an omission to act which would only be culpable if their was a duty to act, and that duty had to be in the patients best interest.

That is very distinct from the concept of acting positively to end a life, which is what would need to happen for Neil Conway