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

[Sharingan]

I feel outraged to be honest although I do think that religious brainwashing has created the problem in the first place. I would feel raped if someone forced me by court order to have something done to me against my wishes even if it was lifesaving.

[Sqad]

\\\\I would feel raped if someone forced me by court order to have something done to me against my wishes even if it was lifesaving. \\\

Then Shari, I am afraid that you would have to live with the feeling of "being raped."

If my medical opinion, backed by the law, would improve and prolong a 17year olds life............then the end justifies the means.

My philosophy.

[boxtops]

You'd rather be dead, sharinghan?

[Sharingan]

Is life always the prize though Sqad, doesn't quality also come into it somewhere?

[Sharingan]

If I had made that determination then yes, as it happens I have nothing whatsoever against blood transfusions, but I don't think someone who is able to understand the consequences of what they are doing should be forced to have medical proceedures performed against their will. Playing Devil's advocate here a bit.

[Sqad]

Shari....the "emotional quality" is your problem......the physical quality is mine.

[Sqad]

Shari,,,agreed......after 18 years of age, I would take his preference into consideration.
He is NOT of that age, so i will act according to the law.

[magsmay]

I agree with Sharingan up to a point - I was bullied to have my children immunised as babies and refused and went through a lot of negative remarks - I would have been enraged if I'd been made to have then immunised. JW's -difficult as although a 17 year old is quite capable of making reasoned decisions of their own if they have been indoctrinated for years with the fact they will go to hell if they take someone elses blood - well thats a difficult one - can't they give the teenager some of its parents blood?

[Sharingan]

I would have thought the emotional well being of a patient is part of the physical well being, isn't that part of the abortion legislation in fact?

[LazyGun]

My inclination would be as Sqads, certainly for a child, but I can fully understand the feelings of someone being forced to receive such a treatment.

In cases like this there obviously have to be legal tests that can be applied, and were it a child I would have no hesitation - its the fact that this child is actually 17, as capable now of reaching an informed decision as he would be in say 10 months, but not allowed to in law.

Fortunately such cases only rarely crop up.

[boxtops]

Crazy, isn't it, when a woman can die in Ireland because nobody would terminate her pregnancy when she was having a miscarriage and desperately asking for help, yet this blood transfusion is to be given against this young man's beliefs?

[Sharingan]

MagsMay, this is your field isn't it? Would this scenario also not cause the young man potentially a lifetime of mental illness and instability? I know they wouldn't see me for dust if there was any danger of me being treated in any way against my will, I feel that strongly about it.

[jim360]

Why not get your children immunised?

I suppose if a patient has a choice that should be respected, but then choices rarely affact only them -- family and so on come into consideration. A JW new mother once preferred to die rather than receive a blood transfusion, as a result her child has no mother for the rest of their life. If a choice is a bad one I'm not sure it should be respected. Though then, of course, who decides what is a "bad choice"?

It's a difficult call, and I've been lucky so far that stuf like this has never happened to me.

[Sharingan]

Who watches the watchers Jim?

[jim360]

I did concede that danger. On the whole though I trust doctors more than myself when it comes to medical decisions.

[society]

I agree share Sqad's sentiments.

[vulcan42]

I do not understand JW's, they refuse a medical procedure not even imagined when the bible was written but are quite happy to have man made chemicals pumped into the body. If they believe that we are made by God, then they must accept he created blood, do they not completely trust him and think they're being poisoned?

[magsmay]

@Jim -this is OT but I do not believe in putting poison into babies -especially when your risk of the things you are immunising for a very very low. They did however get immunised for Polio when they were in their teens.

[sherrardk]

Magsmay - are you worried about the current measles problem?

[jim360]

It's an interpretation of some bible passage that forbid eating meat with the blood still in, e.g. Leviticus 17:10. Somehow they extended "eating blood" to "taking it in a life-saving medical procedure". No I don't get that either.