Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

South Lakes Windows Ltd
 
 
Tuesday, 7th September 2010

Don't let doctors decide my fate

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 March 2004
LESLIE Burke has a degenerative brain disease which will eventually kill him.
But when he dies, he wants it to be naturally - not through being starved to death by his doctors.
That's why Mr Burke has taken his case to the High Court, in a landmark case to change General Medical Council guidelines, which currently allow doctors to choose whether he should be kept alive.
It is thought this is is the first 'right-to-life' case of its kind.
Mr Burke, of Mardale Road on Newton Estate, fears that if his condition deteriorates doctors could decide his quality of life would be so poor they may stop feeding him.
The 44-year-old former postman suffers from cerebellar ataxia, a condition which means he has such poor balance he has to use a wheelchair. His coordination and speech are also impaired.
"But my mental faculties will not be impaired," he said. "Eventually I probably won't be able to move at all and my communication skills will be next to nil.
"This means decisions will be made about me without my consent, or me being asked.
"I have already been in situations where professionals have ignored me when I have been in the room and spoken over the top of me.
"I am frightened that there will come a time when I have lost the capacity to communicate but am aware that the hospital has decided to stop feeding me.
"Once they withdraw artificial nutrition, it would take two to three weeks for me to die.
"I would be lying there in great distress but unable to tell anyone that I want to live."
In 1993 the House of Lords ruled that doctors treating Hillsborough football disaster victim Tony Bland, who was left in a persistent vegetative state, should seek court approval before discontinuing artificial feeding.
But guidelines introduced in 2002 allow doctors to halt feeding for patients suffering from other conditions without going to court.
And in an ironic twist of the law, Mr Burke is able to refuse or consent to life-ending treatment - but not insist on life-prolonging treatment.
"At the moment if I choose to die doctors have to take what I say seriously," he said.
"But if I want treatment such as food and water to carry on, the doctor makes that decision, not me.
"Withholding hydration and nutrition effectively means you would starve to death. If you did that to an animal the RSPCA would be after you."
Neurological experts say Mr Burke could live another 15-20 years.
He was first struck down with the illness in his teens and it was diagnosed when he was 23.
"In hindsight there were a couple of occasions when I was a kid when it affected me," he said, "and then in my teens people started to notice.
"It slowly progressed, and I started using a wheelchair part-time in 1990 and then full-time in 1992/3."
Mr Burke lives with his mother and 43-year-old brother Robert, who has the same condition at a more advanced stage.
"It is difficult because it is going to happen to my brother first and because I can see him I know exactly what's going to happen to me," he said.
Lawyers argued during the three-day High Court hearing before Mr Justice Munby, that patients like Mr Burke should be given food and water until they die naturally.
They said the GMC's guidance on life or death decision-making contravenes his rights under the Human Rights Act.
Barrister Mr Richard Gordon QC said that the case was of 'considerable public importance and interest' and could affect thousands of people like Mr Burke.
"They may die because of the withdrawal of artificial nourishment and hydration by clinicians who think it is in their best interests'' he said.
"Some patients might make a different choice, but Mr Burke states quite clearly that he wants to continue to be fed until he eventually dies of natural causes.
"He does not want to die of starvation or thirst."
But Ms Dinah Rose for the GMC said there was no evidence that doctors would refuse to keep him alive, and Mr Burke's legal team had merely entered into an attempt to 'proffer answers to hypothetical questions of law'.
"There's no evidence at all that any doctor has ever proposed or has any intention of proposing that should Mr Burke require artificial feeding it would not be provided," she said.
A judgment is expected in the next two to three weeks and an appeal by either side could follow.
In the meantime, Mr Burke is determined to continue with his busy life.
"I am very happy with life at the moment," he said. "I do voluntary work three days a week and I have got a good social life.
"I am just getting on with my life, I am not giving up."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated:
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Lancaster
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.