11 Nov 07
i recently read the sad story about the woman who - while giving birth to twins - needed a blood transfusion in order to survive herself... her husband and parents refused the transfusion on the grounds they were jehovah witnesses... the doctors and nurses had to respect their wishes and watch as this woman died...
should doctors not have the right to overrule this on the grounds of survival? also, do the children - who survived - not have the right to grow up with a mother?
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopOh, absolutely. Doctors should have the say there, i think.
i recently read the sad story about the woman who - while giving birth to twins - needed a blood transfusion in order to survive herself... her husband and parents refused the transfusion on the grounds they were jehovah witnesses... the doctors and nurses had to respect their wishes and watch as this woman died...
should doctors not have the right to ...[text shortened]... of survival? also, do the children - who survived - not have the right to grow up with a mother?
My mother told me when she was smaller, there was a girl in her ward who needed blood transfusions but was a jehovahs witness. When her parents went home every night, the nurses would sneak in and give her them. This was the late 1960s though, doctors and nurses had a bit more clout then.
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopThe laws of the land are above the laws of separate religions.
i recently read the sad story about the woman who - while giving birth to twins - needed a blood transfusion in order to survive herself... her husband and parents refused the transfusion on the grounds they were jehovah witnesses... the doctors and nurses had to respect their wishes and watch as this woman died...
should doctors not have the right to ...[text shortened]... of survival? also, do the children - who survived - not have the right to grow up with a mother?
Doctors are obliged to save lives. End of story.
11 Nov 07
Does the law in that case force the doctors to prevent her from dying? I don't think there is a law forcing doctors to do everything humanly possible to keep their patients from dying--I'm thinking more along the lines of old people who decide it's time but it applies to this too maybe.
In Canada there are thousands of people who can't get the medical attention they are seeking. If some religious nut wants to die rather than receive help let her doctor go to someone else.
It's not right that someone that crazy is responsible with children anyway. Ideally, the woman would not be a religious nut in the first place and then her kids could grow up with a mother. But she was a nut, so...
12 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by PlebdazzleWell, what about people who have DNR instructions drawn up? Should doctors disobey and ignore the wishes of those patients as well?
Oh, absolutely. Doctors should have the say there, i think.
My mother told me when she was smaller, there was a girl in her ward who needed blood transfusions but was a jehovahs witness. When her parents went home every night, the nurses would sneak in and give her them. This was the late 1960s though, doctors and nurses had a bit more clout then.
If you say the medical profession doing what they think is right opposed to the wishes of their patients.... where do you draw the line?
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by SMSBear716I'd be in some agreement here. In this case, the patient was above the age of medical consent and so should be able to make decisions as to what medical treatments to recieve or refuse, provided they are made fully aware of the results. The reasons for accepting or refusing a treatment are of no consequence.
Well, what about people who have DNR instructions drawn up? Should doctors disobey and ignore the wishes of those patients as well?
If you say the medical profession doing what they think is right opposed to the wishes of their patients.... where do you draw the line?
If however the patient is below the age of medical consent, it doesn't matter what their parents believe, it counts as child endangerment and the state can take the child under protective custody for their own wellbeing. That was the case in Ireland in the 90's anyway. I agree with that interpretation.
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84I read the initial thread wrong so I will correct myself before someone else does.
Does the law in that case force the doctors to prevent her from dying? I don't think there is a law forcing doctors to do everything humanly possible to keep their patients from dying--I'm thinking more along the lines of old people who decide it's time but it applies to this too maybe.
In Canada there are thousands of people who can't get the medica ...[text shortened]... in the first place and then her kids could grow up with a mother. But she was a nut, so...
The fact that the woman had the transfusion denied on someone else's religious grounds is disgusting! The people involved should be tried for murder.
Religion is the only possible excuse a person could have used in this situation without getting tried for murder. It's insane.
12 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by eatmybishopWhat would have happened if by allowing the transfusion and the transfusion had been contaminated(admittedly not a high probability anymore, but aids and hepatitis infected blood has gotten through the supply chain) the patient lives but then contracts the aids virus?
i recently read the sad story about the woman who - while giving birth to twins - needed a blood transfusion in order to survive herself... her husband and parents refused the transfusion on the grounds they were jehovah witnesses... the doctors and nurses had to respect their wishes and watch as this woman died...
should doctors not have the right to ...[text shortened]... of survival? also, do the children - who survived - not have the right to grow up with a mother?
If it were not for JW's surgeons may never have been compelled to develop newer and better surgical techniques ( virtually blood lossless) where amongst other things the blood of the patient is recirculated during the operation. I am not a JW and I don't particularly agree with their belief on blood, but for every person who refuses blood and survives you can see how that would affirm their belief in the working of God's will. ( especially if it were found out that on the day they had been treated a batch of blood doing the rounds had infected a few people with a nasty disease.)
From my understanding of their belief however they are still allowed some components of blood products and because they do, critics have called their belief into question as being inconsistent.
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by eatmybishopSo far, expect in certain cases of mental illness, no adult can be forced to accept medical treatment. If the woman was unconscious, then the decision fell to the next of kin to decide (or, if they were not available to the doctors), in accordance with what they felt she would request.
i recently read the sad story about the woman who - while giving birth to twins - needed a blood transfusion in order to survive herself... her husband and parents refused the transfusion on the grounds they were jehovah witnesses... the doctors and nurses had to respect their wishes and watch as this woman died...
should doctors not have the right to ...[text shortened]... of survival? also, do the children - who survived - not have the right to grow up with a mother?
In general, adults cannot be kept alive against their will -- even children cannot force that decision on their parents.
To change this, you would have to pass a law making suicide illegal -- so attempted suicide = attempted murder or reckless endangerment or something.
But the notion sounds silly on it's face.
Clearly, the docotors could act to save the children, though. Children do not have an independent, legal, will of their own -- so making sure they survive until they reach adulthood and independence is paramount for them.
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by shavixmirI stand corrected.
The laws of the land are above the laws of separate religions.
Doctors are obliged to save lives. End of story.
Seemingly, here in Holland, if an adult male doesn't want a blood transfusion, the doctor's can't give him one.
I'm divided on this issue. On the one hand, sure if someone wants to bleed to death... so be it. On the other hand, how indoctrinated do you have to be that if all you need is a blood transfusion to live a healthy life, you'd be willing to sacrifise yourself?
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by shavixmirAnyone can refuse medical treatment, be it on religious grounds or any other reason.
I stand corrected.
Seemingly, here in Holland, if an adult male doesn't want a blood transfusion, the doctor's can't give him one.
I'm divided on this issue. On the one hand, sure if someone wants to bleed to death... so be it. On the other hand, how indoctrinated do you have to be that if all you need is a blood transfusion to live a healthy life, you'd be willing to sacrifise yourself?
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by shavixmirEven adult females...
I stand corrected.
Seemingly, here in Holland, if an adult male doesn't want a blood transfusion, the doctor's can't give him one.
I'm divided on this issue. On the one hand, sure if someone wants to bleed to death... so be it. On the other hand, how indoctrinated do you have to be that if all you need is a blood transfusion to live a healthy life, you'd be willing to sacrifise yourself?
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by spruce112358I thought the whole reason euthanasia was outlawed was because suicide was illegal. Sure if you are successful who they gonna sue, but if you assisted someones suicide you like Kervorkian will be charged with something.
In general, adults cannot be kept alive against their will -- even children cannot force that decision on their parents.
To change this, you would have to pass a law making suicide illegal -- so attempted suicide = attempted murder or reckless endangerment or something.
12 Nov 07
Originally posted by kmax87Yeah I'm pretty sure that suicide is illegal.
I thought the whole reason euthanasia was outlawed was because suicide was illegal. Sure if you are successful who they gonna sue, but if you assisted someones suicide you like Kervorkian will be charged with something.