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]

A person who values, and have respect for life would save it rather than let it perish.

[leahbee]

When my husband was in hospital there was a young man in there with severe burns. He was also a jw. His parents refused to allow a life saving transfusion, this really upset me as the doctors were trying desperately to save my husbands life. He died anyway but this was a long time ago. The point is that the surgeon told me that they would take the young man to theatre and give blood without consent. He said they were in the business of saving life not letting them die. He said that they would not tell the parents.

[magsmay]

@squad - People die all the time of mundane things that get complications -are you saying we shuold have a 'shot' for everything and it be mandatory? yes there are complications of measles -there are also complications with immunisations - they are not 'all safe' - strangely enough a large proportion of the medical doctors I know professionally and socially will not have their children immunised under the age of 5. I'm not against immunisation in older children - I get my tetanus jab and all my children have had the Polio vaccine but all have had the 'childhood' diseases naturally . I have had the rabies shots (all 6 including the Gamma Globin) when I was bitten by a bat in Canada that tested positive for Rabies - I had no hesitation in getting it and was glad of it. This is not about the benefits of immunisation or blood transfusions -its about the right to choose what you want to do with your own body.

[woofgang]

so jim, if I think that a decision that you make is silly then that entitles me to stop you doing it? smoking? drinking? riding a pushbike?
I agree that this case is complicated by the fact that this boy is legally not adult, but factually probably is and legally is almost adult.
But for adults, I will defend to the death the right of any adult to make their own choices about their own fate provided that such choices do not injure others (so no leaping in front of trains) and regardless of my or others opinions about the good sense or otherwise of those decisions.

[Sqad]

magsmay.......that is fine.......you don't want to have your children immunized against measles.

My answer to you was, in my opinion, your trivialisation of the effects of measles was completely misguided, particularly when you compared them with the deleterious effects of immunisation.

[LazyGun]

@Magsmay - I am not sure that Sqad is saying that, although i know I am :)

The complications of immunisation are dwarfed massively by the very real complications and dangers of measles.And, whilst I mean no disrespect to you, it would be a mistake to assume your own personal opinion based upon your medical contacts is in any way representative of the profession as a whole. Those doctors you know that would refuse immunisations to their children under the age of 5 would be in a tiny minority, professionally speaking.

[Sqad]

LG we double posted the same message......

[LazyGun]

Ahh, so i see. Interesting topics, i think.

[jim360]

I'm not sure I believe in that right if it has consequences for others or if your decision is based, as in this case, on nothing other than bad theology.

Even though in the end I suppose I have a choice to, I'd choose to follow the medical advice. After looking into it, perhaps just in case I have a bad doctor, but on balance aren't they more likely to know than I am?

As far as I can tell there has been no significant demonstrable risk of any vaccine that is not vastly outweighed by the benefits. As the MMR scandal shows, sometimes the choices you make for your body affects other people's too, as they are exposed to potentially dangerous diseases they need not have been.

[jim360]

I don't smoke or drink, woofgang, but anyway yes, if I were making a stupid decision that could affect both me and others who know me, I'd quite like you to try and stop me. Otherwise, if no-one is harmed by it, then yes my choices are my own.

My argument is that in this case his choice WILL injure others directly, since it increases the chances of his death. That will have a serious effect on other people - his friends and family, for example.

[woofgang]

but his friends and family are JW....they are more likely to be affected by the transfusion....also that is between the person and their friends and family, in the case of an adult, the law should not be intervening and certainly should not be deciding which decisions are stupid and which are not.

[lcg]

nowhere in the bible does it say you should refuse blood - that is a myth. he is probably an otherwise fit and healthy child who is brainwashed into believing the tripe peddled by jw's (my hubby grew up as one and they are so hypocritical and controlling) and therefore isn't making a reasoned/rational decision. anyone who puts man made religion before saving/prolonging life through scientific treatment is nuts, imho....therefore the judge is right.

[Sqad]

\\they are not 'all safe' - strangely enough a large proportion of the medical doctors I know professionally and socially will not have their children immunised\\\

and that is the "beauty of medicine"....it often boils down to a "matter of opinion"......sometimes a battle between scientific evidence and anecdotal data.

I have been taken to task many times on "bad or iffy advice" that i have given. Life goes on and medics do have and give "their" opinions....for better and for worse.

[slaney]

In the UK younger teenagers than this, if they are deemed Gillick competent, can theoretically refuse blood transfusion. I'm not sure though that any court has upheld the refusal of life saving treatment - so far. The reason usually given is that at that age one cannot understand the process of dying, or the distress and suffering there may be.

There was this case a few years ago ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7734480/Teenage-Jehovahs-Witness-refuses-blood-transfusion-and-dies.html

A really tough decision - I would like to know what his life expectancy is from the point of view of his relapsed Hodgkin's Lymphoma. It is pretty difficult to give effective and intensive chemotherapy without the back up of transfusions.
It goes against the grain to give treatment without consent, but it's certainly not easy, and perhaps even worse, to watch someone die from extreme anaemia..

[leahbee]

It seems to me that the majority of people on this site just use it as a place to have an argument and will just change the topic just to outdo each other.

[Canary42]

It seems to me that the medical profession are as arrogant as the religious extremists.

I.e. "I'm right, you're wrong, end of argument".

Sadly, they get backing from the even more arrogant Legal profession - old boys network and all that.

[Aprilis]

Leahbee, I agree that some people do just that. But there is a difference between argument and debate. Personally I'd like to think this thread is a debate and a very interesting one at that. No one side has me entirely convinced but I'm erring on the side that the boy should be made to have the transfusion. I do believe in the right of personal choice too, so it's not at all straightforward. The boy is a minor though and as such isn't mature enough to make a fully informed decision. Also I feel that religious indoctrination isn't a good enough reason not to save life in my personal opinion. It's an interesting case and one that deserves debating.

[LazyGun]

@Slaney - Thanks for the link. Interesting about the Gillicks competence test - google would suggest that it was also adopted in Australia, so the question arises why it was not applied in this case..

[jim360]

I probably am a bit arrogant. (A bit...)

But at times, are there not some opinions which are basically wrong or misinformed? I'm sure I have more than a few of those too. But if my wrong misinformed opinion is still respected that does no-one any favours, since I'm wrong and stay that way, and you're there respecting my being wrong and/ or stupid.

Anyway, he's not an adult, yet, so these arguments don't apply to him.