ChatterBank0 min 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://
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://
18:34 Thu 18th Apr 2013
@Lazygun - the judge presumably decided he was not Gillick competent.
More on it here..
http://
More on it here..
http://
@Slaney Very interesting; This sentence from your linked article is especially illuminating -
"With refusals to treatment, however, it appears that children’s wishes are not considered in the same way or taken into account as much as they should be. Cases such as Re: E (A Minor) Wardship: Medical Treatment[3] have made it clear that children do not have the collateral right to refuse treatment as they do to consent. This puts into question the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)"
"With refusals to treatment, however, it appears that children’s wishes are not considered in the same way or taken into account as much as they should be. Cases such as Re: E (A Minor) Wardship: Medical Treatment[3] have made it clear that children do not have the collateral right to refuse treatment as they do to consent. This puts into question the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)"
you (the law, society) don't have to respect the opinion, you don't even have to respect the decision in terms of agreeing that it is right. What the law and society does have to do is accept that people have a right to be stupid/wrong/misinformed and to make their own decisions anyway provided that those decisions do not injure others. Giving others mental or emotional pain is a bit more nebulous...should someone not be allowed to divorce their spouse because of the pain it will cause the children for instance?
I am amazed that the medical staff will agree to forcibly sedate the young man. Its a very unpleasant thing to be involved in and, as I understand it, it won't be a one off intervention.
I am amazed that the medical staff will agree to forcibly sedate the young man. Its a very unpleasant thing to be involved in and, as I understand it, it won't be a one off intervention.
leahbee, if the surgeon was serious, he was really pushing his luck. The fact of the transfusion (and the crossmatch info) would be in the patient notes and the parents would have needed to know that he had been transfused because it will temporarily affect future care and such things as blood test results. Not putting it in the record would be serious bad practice and also put the young man at risk.
It is and actually I have less issues with covert treatment that's lifesaving. I have terrible issues with the idea of someone being restrained against their will and assaulted in their eyes. I can understand any Drs desire to help someone, to prolong their life and to treat someone they know they can help, but I just think the psychological trauma involved in being treated against their will would be a massive breach of their duty of care to the human as a whole.
even when it says nothing in the bible to back their 'belief'? no other religion sees fit to expect a worshiper to choose between living (longer) and their god. jw's should hang their heads in shame. yes it will be distressing for the boy, but how do you think medical staff will feel if they were to not treat him? (i'm trying to sit on the fence a bit there) x
How far would that go, though?
Suppose, for example, I believed that hair was sacred so refused to be shaved before an operation? (I'm not sure this is entirely silly, I'm fairly sure a similar belief leads Sikhs not to cut their hair or shave their beards, though to my knowledge it hasn't affected operations on Sikhs.) But shaving the hair is important for Hygiene, no?
Or alternatively, to extend the transfusion argument, I refuse all transplants too? Maybe out of some idea that I was given this body and have to use only what was originally given (overlooking the fact that there's probably not an atom of me that was still there ten years ago).
Does the personal view become less important if it's just an individual one, or conversely more important if it's part of a shared culture? Should some ideas that are known to be wrong be respected just because a fair few people share them? Where, if anywhere, is the line drawn?
Suppose, for example, I believed that hair was sacred so refused to be shaved before an operation? (I'm not sure this is entirely silly, I'm fairly sure a similar belief leads Sikhs not to cut their hair or shave their beards, though to my knowledge it hasn't affected operations on Sikhs.) But shaving the hair is important for Hygiene, no?
Or alternatively, to extend the transfusion argument, I refuse all transplants too? Maybe out of some idea that I was given this body and have to use only what was originally given (overlooking the fact that there's probably not an atom of me that was still there ten years ago).
Does the personal view become less important if it's just an individual one, or conversely more important if it's part of a shared culture? Should some ideas that are known to be wrong be respected just because a fair few people share them? Where, if anywhere, is the line drawn?
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.