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

[jim360]

Oh I gave it quite a bit of thought, woofgang. Even if we disagree I gave it some thought, and I'm sure you have too. Let's have a bit more respect for each other than that. Everyone involved matters, not just the patient.

[Sharingan]

What you think Jim doesn't matter, like what I think doesn't matter or what the Drs think, it's this man's body, his body, no-one else's. To forcibly treat him is imho an assault.

[jim360]

To cut a long story short, I just don't believe in a right to being wrong or ignorant.

[woofgang]

okay jim, so you think that because people have chosen a career in lifesaving , they should be allowed to save life willy nilly because it will be too distressing for then if they don't.

okay....same principle. Someone chooses to be a hairdresser and therefore should be allowed to cut people's hair regardless of their wishes or beliefs because it will be distressing for the hairdresser if they don't??????

[woofgang]

wrong or ignorant by whose definition?

[jim360]

Mine, obviously!

In some areas there is no ambiguity about being wrong. Medicine, perhaps, isn't yet always one of them. But some cures are known not to work and should not be advertised as successful despite that (homeopathy, I'm thinking of you). Some procedures are completely safe and yet people insist wrongly that they are not. Some world views are completely and demonstrably wrong but apparently it's disrespectful to argue this.

Whose definition of right or wrong? Science's.

[woofgang]

That's not the argument....the argument is about choice...science has nothing to say about whether someone should or should not accept treatment against their wishes.

[jim360]

Well you are taking my arguments a bit too far -- if someone is upset at a death they could have prevented that's reasonable, because death is very often traumatic. Someone who gets horribly upset at not being able to cut hair probably needs psychiatric care. That's hardly comparing like with like.

If someone is refusing treatment that is known to have a significant impact against their wishes for no reason that is to me irrational. The legal judgement is based on whether or not someone is capable of rational thought. In this case, then, I'd argue that they are not. So science does have an indirect role to play, since it determines for me the concept of rationality.

This choice is wholly irrational and therefore for me should not be respected.

[whiskeryron]

As a rule when I make an appointment to see my GP my medical condition is discussed by the GP & myself & if any treatment is required I usually go ahead with whatever is needed, but I am given the option. If I decide not to have treatment then that is my decision, I am quite happy for someone to explain why the treatment is required & what the consequences will be if I do not have the treatment, but the decision is mine & mine alone. In my opinion if someone wishes to refuse any treatment that is offered that is their prerogative. If the young man in question prefers not to have a blood transfusion for ANY reason then his wishes should be adhered to. ( I am definitely NOT a J/W).

WR.

[woofgang]

but that's your opinion....why should your opinion on what is rational be able to overrule my choices?

[woofgang]

Ron that was addressed to jim, not you

[jim360]

When do things stop being matters of right and wrong? Perhaps medicine is still one where a choice should be respected. But there are some things you cannot have an opinion about. You are right, or wrong. In those cases you should be overruled. The question is how far do those things go. I'd say it should cover medical matters, most probably disagree with me.

For me, at least, the philosophy is, "I do not usually know what is best for me."

[Sharingan]

''But there are some things you cannot have an opinion about. You are right, or wrong. In those cases you should be overruled.''
Okay Jim I see now.
Rightho then, I'm right, you're wrong.
See silly argument isn't it?

[jim360]

Depends what the thing is. General guideline, the more scientific, and ultimately mathematical, a thing is, the less opinion matters. So it's not a silly argument at all. Medicine is relatively scientific, so opinions start becoming less significant if there is no scientific evidence to support them.

This opinion (JW and transfusions) has no scientific evidence to support it, therefore it should be afforded at the very least far less weight than the contrary, if not no weight at all.

[emmie]

does the same rule apply here, seeing as that this case is in NSW. That someone can refuse treatment, if so then his wishes should be respected. I don't agree with it, but what should the doctors do.

[Sharingan]

It doesn't matter what the thing is Jim, if it's medical, scientific, proven beyond any doubt even, it involves a human being with thoughts, emotions and rights to choose. That is ALL that matters.

[jim360]

Taking it to the ridiculous, one should not be able to choose to have 2+3 = 4 as a fact. So no, it's not all that matters. "Right" matters to me far more than choice.

[Sharingan]

Glad you aren't my Dr then, it's a pretty arrogant viewpoint with all due respect.

[woofgang]

But the right to choice is not about absolute right or wrong, its about the right of the individual to choose. Evidently staying alive means a lot to you...to some people it means less or nothing.

Going back to when I was working, to some people it seemed essential that their older relative should get dressed in day clothes every day, eat "normal" food at "normal" times and so on. If the relative's chosen lifestyle differed from this, then they should be "made" to comply to the extent of being forcibly removed from their own home and put into residential care. To the older person the essential was to stay in their own home living how they chose.
When you have seen people so distressed about having their choice overruled by "the people who love them best" then you get to where I am. Paramount is the right of the individual to choose; to have dominion over their own bodies and future for so long as they are able and when/if they are no longer able, to have those choices made for them in consultation with them and based fully upon what they would choose if they were still able to.

[Sharingan]

Completely Woofgang- would you however like to borrow my brickwall to bang your head against, I'll try to wipe my blood off first :) xx