Starving woman: Carers helping her die - husband

Print

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 7:08p.m.

Margaret Page, 60, has been assessed and found mentally competent to have made her decision

Margaret Page, 60, has been assessed and found mentally competent to have made her decision

The residential care facility where a woman is starving herself to death claims the Bill of Rights prevents them from force-feeding her.

Refusing food, or starving oneself, is a form of suicide and assisting suicide is illegal. The facility says force-feeding the woman would legally be assault.

Margaret Page, 60, has been assessed and found mentally competent to have made her decision. She is being allowed to die.

Her husband, Barry Page, says that is outrageous and surely it is the job of medical professionals to save her life.

“She’s very week. She’s lying on her bed, taking no water at all,” he says.

“She’s accepted her fate that this is the way she is going to die. Nothing is going to change her mind.”

The pair have been married for 42 years and Mr Page says he nursed her in their home for 16 years after an aneurysm left her disabled.

“I know that they care for her, however they don’t value her as an asset to the community. It’s an industry, it’s a money-making venture and they’ve got to look at the bottom line – it is a business.”

The disability facility she has lived at for the last four years rejects that claim.

In a media statement, St John of God in Wellington says it has done everything possible to persuade Ms Page to eat. But under the Bill of Rights it cannot force her to take food.

“I believe that if she was in my care she would still be okay, and that’s easy for me to say because I know – I did it for 16 years," says Mr Page.

Four years ago Mr Page could no longer cope and Ms Page found herself in the home.

Mr Page believes the health system failed to provide what she needed for quality of life.

“She was waiting to be fitted for a cushion on a wheelchair to overcome the soreness, she’d been waiting nine months to be assessed for a communication device so that she could communicate more easily with other clients in the rest home,” he says.

Being on waiting lists for basic equipment has robbed Ms Page of her will to live, he says. In his care she did become despondent, but he could always talk her around.

“We enjoyed a lifestyle which was dictated by her abilities, but we managed to go around the countryside.”

He says his wife had talked of ending her life before, “but in those periods I was able to redirect, and she would come out of it and be quite content”.

Mr Page says his wife’s life will now end in a final irony – the professionals which are caring for her are involved in what amounts to assisted suicide.

“If I did this and allowed it to go on I’d certainly be charged, I’ve got no doubt about it,” he says.

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

26 Mar 2010 12:57a.m.

Spazza wrote:

Barry...as hard as it is....its time to let yr wife go...she IS of very sound mind & she IS also a prisoner trapped inside her own body & has been for 20 long years..youv said yrself while caring for her there were times she became despondant but you could always talk her around...put yrself in yr wifes position & ask yrself how yr life would be if it were you & not her whos had to live life this way for the past 20 years. Yr wifes choice to not eat so she can die... IS the one & only...little bit of control she has left in her life & there isn't any 1 thing that any one person can do to stop her...let her have that control...this is her way of telling you she is unhappy & miserable...no cushion for pain or device to help her to communicate with others in the home is going to help - she just wants control of herself & her life back...& this IS the only way shes able to & shes going to make sure she gets it & this is the way shes chosen to take it back...wether yr ready for it or not???....but she IS....

25 Mar 2010 04:58p.m.

Paul wrote:

It's simple. Treat her well enough to have the will to live or let her die. Give this woman the will to live with the things she needs to give her quality of life. Don't expect her to live a shitty existence.

25 Mar 2010 02:58p.m.

lassie wrote:

This isnt dignity the bill of rights is all up the shoot. The hospital where she is at, needs to be assessed and the psychiatrist her assess her as well. In my view maybe they could of asked for a second opinion from another specialist and general practitioner. I find this lunacrist and quite frankly insane. Yes we have hospice where cancer patients go in and of course stay till treatment and no more can be done for them etc.
This story sounds to be all one sided. She cannot think for herself and be in the right mind, surely they can induce her and feed her thru the tubes. It sounds like people care and then they dont. Yes she has rights and so does her family.I never thought we had hospitals that help you to die like this it is all crap.It is cruelty within itself. Where is the humanity in that. If I were her family I would rather take her home or somewhere else than where she is now. This is very sad but I do not think it is right thing to let her die.The hospital will bear their cross end of story.Get a second opinion and get her out of there. Under the disability act those that are in no mental stability to think for themselves the carers meaning the family can make the last decision for her.

25 Mar 2010 09:04a.m.

dave wrote:

I believe she has the right to choose and the right to dignity. This squabbling is not dignity and like Bukster I hope if I am ever in this state that there will be better options. I would wish to end things with pride intact and dignity.

25 Mar 2010 08:30a.m.

Diana wrote:

As Mr Page is reported as saying, Margaret's quality of life was affected by the fact that there were long waiting lists for basic equipment and this eventually sapped her of her will to live. Her frustration at not being able to communicate easily, and her constant discomfort caused by an ill-fitting chair finally became too much for her. Margaret is a strong willed woman and determined that unless these things are improved, life is not worth living. What does this say about our treatment of the disabled? Their needs are urgent and yet it appears that our government fobs them off and prolongs their unnecessary suffering. Yes, perhaps it is Margaret's right to refuse food, but how has she come to this state of mind at this point in life? With adequate funding and improved systems in place to meet disabled peoples needs, Margaret may well have been happy to continue to enjoy the quality of life she had, watching her family's successes and being a part of her grandchildren's lives.

24 Mar 2010 10:02p.m.

Andrew wrote:

The law is just part of the issue Andrew, but the legislation is nearly 50 and dare I say it, woefully outdated.

24 Mar 2010 09:44p.m.

Glocks wrote:

Its the 21st century, and some of these laws are well past their use by date. Advances in medical science have given us the ability to significantly prolong life, which in many cases also prolongs suffering. It seems perverse that we routinely euthanize dogs for humane reasons, yet the terminally ill are forced to linger in a type of living hell. I am still waiting to hear a compelling argument against euthanasia that ISN'T based solely on religious conviction.

24 Mar 2010 08:53p.m.

Lightseed wrote:

Be with your wife, love her, accept and support her decision, she will pass soon, but let her passing be knowing that someone she loves understands and loves her as well. People really need to have these discussions while they can. I've had it with a close friend who has many medical problems that when, not if, he decides it is time for him to pass I will be there to help him.

24 Mar 2010 08:03p.m.

Andrew wrote:

Every one is justified in using such force as may be reasonably necessary in order to prevent the commission of suicide, or the commission of an offence which would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of any one, or in order to prevent any act being done which he believes, on reasonable grounds, would, if committed, amount to suicide or to any such offence.

Crimes Act 1961 Section 41

24 Mar 2010 07:54p.m.

bukster wrote:

The person interviewing Barry Page didn't ask the obvious question, "What's your angle, why insist she live if she doesn't want to?". It's her life, why not just respect her wishes? I would wonder if Barry has a religious motive here. There seems little point in keeping Margaret alive if she doesn't wish it. She is never going to recover. If she's had enough, let her go. In New Zealand we tend not to change laws, but just leave them to become irrelevant. We did this with homosexuality and prostitution. I suspect euthanasia laws will suffer the same fate. By the time the law is finally changed, euthanasia will be widely practised and accepted. Euthanasia will have been effectively legal for many years before it is actually legal. No politician is bold enough to make a move even if the public are well ready for it. A law change would allow Margaret to end her life quickly and painlessly rather than going through this long and nasty way to die. I hope if I'm ever in this state, I will have a better option.