Judge Rules Teen Jw Must Have A Blood Transfusion

[LazyGun]

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.theage.com.au/national/teen-witness-must-have-a-transfusion-rules-judge-20130417-2i0lc.html

[society]

Sharin, if this boy was your son, what would your choice be?

[jomifl]

Sharingham, there is no quality of life in being dead.

[woofgang]

There are people who have very bad ingrow problems when they are shaved, especially if they have had operations before, if you want a "sensible" reason.

My background is in Occupational Therapy. Much of my time has been spent working with older and disabled people helping them to get out of hospital and back home, if this is what they want. You would be shocked (I hope) at the number of well meaning family members, neighbours and medical staff who thought (I am retired now) who thought that my job was either to decide whether or not such and such a person would be allowed to go home or, worse, that my job was to make the person do what the family member/neighbour/ doctor/nurse thought was "best for them" which usually meant a "home" rather than their home.
Please understand that where a relative or neighbour is being ground down by the needs of a person, then part of my job was to facilitate conversations about what it is reasonable to ask a relative or neighbour to do, what isn't and how the gap can be bridged. Sometimes the gap really isn't bridgeable and the person really isn't competent to decide where they want to be but often the objections are because the person doesn't live their life in the way that the objector expects...
which at base is where we are now....a person choosing to live their life (or in this case risk it) and other people expecting that something different is right.
As I said earlier, this is complicated because the young man is so near adulthood which makes me suspect that he has been adjudged not to be Gillick competent, or that the appeal process will last until he is an adult.

[Sharingan]

No Jomifl but being dead is a choice, being treated against your will is not a choice, it's the exact opposite.
I have no issues with blood transfusions and if he were my son I would not have brought him up to think he'd go to hell if he had one. xx

[jomifl]

Sharingham, being dead is not a choice for most people.

[jim360]

Having therefore said that this young man has been brought up that way, has he not been indoctrinated? And therefore, making a decision that is really his parents'? Under those circumstances I'd argue that he's not really capable of making his own choice - he's been brainwashed. At least until 18 that has to apply.

Death is so rarely a choice, most people never have it. I don't see why people think of it as a choice. It's a certainty.

[magsmay]

Death is not a choice -that's what Tony Nicholson was fighting in the courts for -the right to chose to die. But I know what Sharingan means - if you refuse a life saving medical intervention then it is your choice - the State making you have the procedure is not a choice .

[jomifl]

Jim, I am in complete agreement with you. It should be made illegal for parents to indoctrinate their children into any religion. Let kids pick up their own hangups, don't force feed them.

[woofgang]

jim I think that's what the judge thought, that when put to the test of Gillick competence, the young man was not able to make his own decision because of the way he had been brought up. As i said I wonder if any part of that decision was influenced by the length of time that any appeals process might take.

[mibn2cweus]

Arbitrary established age limits do not determine whether someone is qualified to make a rational choice any more than does 'parental' status. On the other hand, unquestioning compliance with supposed dictates of an alleged big daddy in the sky should call the ability to make rational decisions in question . . . as it apparently has in this case.

[emmie]

whilst this may not be in direct relation to the person in question, measles can kill, though no one has died from this epidemic as yet, this is the view of doctors, and i would go with sqad on this one.

http://news.sky.com/story/1077915/measles-outbreak-first-death-feared

[sandyRoe]

Will he be an outcast, ostracised by all who he holds dear, if he survives the treatment?
That seems a fate worse than death.

[emmie]

so he would rather die than get treated, not much sense in that i'm afraid.

[emmie]

sandy, so what you are saying that it would be better if he dies, rather than risk be cut off from his community, it's thinking like that that makes me wonder at religion, who would rather a life was snuffed out than make a decision to get better, i know which i would choose.

[slaney]

Sandy - Jehovah's Witnesses are only shunned after "wilful acceptance" of transfusion - they are not shunned if it is ordered by a court.

[mikey4444]

This has happened many times before. Hospitals have a duty of care and, if necessary, will use the law to ensure that a person doesn't die.

Not sure what anybody can find wrong with a Hospital saving lives ?

[keyplus90]

Whatever saves a life should be done. As simple as that.

[woofgang]

Setting aside that the young man is not legally adult, which is a complication, I think that the reason behind the individual's choice is not actually relevant to whether having that choice is right. The right to choose what medical treatment that you accept is like the right to free speech. It is important to defend the principle even if you don't agree with the individual's decision because once the principle is breached then we are all at risk from the decision making of others on our behalf whether we want it or not.

[jim360]

Free speech is only a right if it affects nobody else. I'm at risk of making "affects" more and more loose here, but has a teacher a right to teach things that are wrong, citing "freedom of speech"? No. Do bullies have the right to "freedom of speech" allowing them to insult people? No. In both cases someone else is affected.

The doctors who are trying to save this boy's life will care if he dies. The parents will care if he dies. His friends will care if he dies. All these people will be affected, should this boy die when there was someone that could have been done to save him or at least improve his chances of life. There is no case for his refusing medical attention, and it should be given.

[woofgang]

His parents and presumably his JW friends support him in his decision and they will presumably be affected worse by the forcible transfusion than they would by his death. I am afraid that the medical staff don't get a say here, if you give it even a short amount of thought, you will see how unreasonable it is to allow medical staff to be able to use the law to enforce their opinions because it would distress them to have their opinions ignored....that's just silly.