UPDATE ON LK AND FORCED SURGERY

In a previous post, I linked to the story of LK, who refused surgery for cervical cancer for religious reasons, but was to be forced by court order to undergo a radical hysterectomy against her will.

From the ABA Journal:

Under legal standards for informed consent, an adult who is mentally competent generally has a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, even treatment that would be life-saving.
....

The state supreme court...stayed the court order requiring the hysterectomy and provided for the emergency appeal to proceed.

“Normally, we don’t force treatment on adults. Competent adults can refuse even lifesaving treatments on religious terms,” Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics tells the Missoulian. “The challenge is to establish that they truly are incompetent and that they really do comprehend the risk posed to their life.”

Exactly. The stay is the proper ruling. The burden of proof falls on those who say LK is incompetent.

Thanks to Paul (A.) for the link.

WHOSE CHOICE IS IT?

From the Washington Post:

The Montana Supreme Court has delayed an order that a cancer patient undergo a hysterectomy to give her time to appeal a finding that she is not mentally competent to make such a decision.

District Judge Karen Townsend issued a March 1 ruling ordering the woman to undergo a radical hysterectomy on March 3 to treat her cervical cancer. The woman is identified in documents by the initials L.K.

L.K.'s appeal says she is a deeply religious woman who wants children and that she objected to the hysterectomy on both grounds, the Missoulian reported Sunday.

After L.K.'s cancer diagnosis, Dr. Valerie Knutsen sent a letter to the Missoula County attorney's office in September with concerns about L.K.'s ability to make medical decisions. A nurse sent similar letters in September and October. A petition to appoint a temporary medical guardian was filed in November. On Feb. 11, the temporary medical guardian signed a consent form for L.K. to have the radical hysterectomy. The surgery was scheduled for March 3.
....

The Supreme Court stayed Townsend's order and agreed to expedite the appeal.

Ever since I read the article in the local paper this morning, I've been thinking about LK's situation off and on. She is Stage 1, and she could probably be cured and live for many more years. And yet, and yet.... Unless upon further examination, LK is shown to be incapacitated by mental illness beyond the decision not to have surgery, I lean toward her being permitted to make the choice. I believe that LK is wrong to refuse the surgery, but I do not believe the treatment should be forced upon her.

What do you think?