ChatterBank10 mins ago
Judge Rules Teen Jw Must Have A Blood Transfusion
172 Answers
What do you think to this case?
I am all for authorizing blood transfusions when the prognosis is such that the patient will almost certainly die if they do not receive a transfusion, and where there is a clear expectation that having received a blood transfusion the chances of survival are markedly released, and were this case about a young child, under 15-16 say I would probably not have any issues with the decision.
But a 17 year old only months away from being 18? Not sure we should be forcing patients to receive blood -having to sedate them to give them a transfusion - is warranted.
http:// www.the age.com .au/nat ional/t een-wit ness-mu st-have -a-tran sfusion -rules- judge-2 0130417 -2i0lc. html
I am all for authorizing blood transfusions when the prognosis is such that the patient will almost certainly die if they do not receive a transfusion, and where there is a clear expectation that having received a blood transfusion the chances of survival are markedly released, and were this case about a young child, under 15-16 say I would probably not have any issues with the decision.
But a 17 year old only months away from being 18? Not sure we should be forcing patients to receive blood -having to sedate them to give them a transfusion - is warranted.
http://
Answers
@Lazygun - the judge presumably decided he was not Gillick competent. More on it here.. http:// www. kslr. org. uk/ blogs/ humanrights/ 2012/ 01/ 20/ article- 8- and- minors- right- to- refuse- medical- treatment/
18:34 Thu 18th Apr 2013
\\\\I would feel raped if someone forced me by court order to have something done to me against my wishes even if it was lifesaving. \\\
Then Shari, I am afraid that you would have to live with the feeling of "being raped."
If my medical opinion, backed by the law, would improve and prolong a 17year olds life............then the end justifies the means.
My philosophy.
Then Shari, I am afraid that you would have to live with the feeling of "being raped."
If my medical opinion, backed by the law, would improve and prolong a 17year olds life............then the end justifies the means.
My philosophy.
If I had made that determination then yes, as it happens I have nothing whatsoever against blood transfusions, but I don't think someone who is able to understand the consequences of what they are doing should be forced to have medical proceedures performed against their will. Playing Devil's advocate here a bit.
I agree with Sharingan up to a point - I was bullied to have my children immunised as babies and refused and went through a lot of negative remarks - I would have been enraged if I'd been made to have then immunised. JW's -difficult as although a 17 year old is quite capable of making reasoned decisions of their own if they have been indoctrinated for years with the fact they will go to hell if they take someone elses blood - well thats a difficult one - can't they give the teenager some of its parents blood?
My inclination would be as Sqads, certainly for a child, but I can fully understand the feelings of someone being forced to receive such a treatment.
In cases like this there obviously have to be legal tests that can be applied, and were it a child I would have no hesitation - its the fact that this child is actually 17, as capable now of reaching an informed decision as he would be in say 10 months, but not allowed to in law.
Fortunately such cases only rarely crop up.
In cases like this there obviously have to be legal tests that can be applied, and were it a child I would have no hesitation - its the fact that this child is actually 17, as capable now of reaching an informed decision as he would be in say 10 months, but not allowed to in law.
Fortunately such cases only rarely crop up.
Why not get your children immunised?
I suppose if a patient has a choice that should be respected, but then choices rarely affact only them -- family and so on come into consideration. A JW new mother once preferred to die rather than receive a blood transfusion, as a result her child has no mother for the rest of their life. If a choice is a bad one I'm not sure it should be respected. Though then, of course, who decides what is a "bad choice"?
It's a difficult call, and I've been lucky so far that stuf like this has never happened to me.
I suppose if a patient has a choice that should be respected, but then choices rarely affact only them -- family and so on come into consideration. A JW new mother once preferred to die rather than receive a blood transfusion, as a result her child has no mother for the rest of their life. If a choice is a bad one I'm not sure it should be respected. Though then, of course, who decides what is a "bad choice"?
It's a difficult call, and I've been lucky so far that stuf like this has never happened to me.
I do not understand JW's, they refuse a medical procedure not even imagined when the bible was written but are quite happy to have man made chemicals pumped into the body. If they believe that we are made by God, then they must accept he created blood, do they not completely trust him and think they're being poisoned?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.