Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When the courts become "Big Brother"

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by bambam
    if I (or any MD) give a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness or render medical care without informed consent from the patient, or the patient's parents, we can be charged with felonious assault and battery (and of course malpractice).
    And if you don't. won't the family sue for neglect (at the very least you won't be able to live with yourself)? Isn't there a Good Samaritan Law or something in the Hippocratic Oath that compels you to save lives?
    Good Samaritan Laws are something different altogether. Only apply in emergency situations outside of a medical setting like if you come across a car accident on the side of the road.

    It's not that we can't live with ourselves. We're not allowed to do things without informed consent from the patient or family. If we don't get that we can't do invasive procedures - that is simple. Now when its pretty obvious we can lead the family to do the right thing. But when they won't, as in this case, we're in a very tough situation, which is when the lawyers step in, as they always do.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by trackjudge
      (bh was right)
      Darn near my favorite phrase!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by bad hammy
        Originally posted by trackjudge
        (bh was right)
        Darn near my favorite phrase!
        We don't hear that one too often.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by tandfman
          Originally posted by Pego
          I am not aware of a religion that demands total withholding of medical services from an adult, let alone a child.
          I knew a Christian Scientist who I believe had a treatable condition but who died because she would not seek medical help.
          I know, some of them do that. As far as I know, their religion prefers not to resort to "standard medicine", but does not expressly prohibit it either.
          "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
          by Thomas Henry Huxley

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
            Originally posted by Marlow
            Squack is correct. The kid is a minor, therefore, by definition, he is not in a position to make an informed decision, so no, it's not his choice. The parents are sacrificing his life on their religious position? I simply don't get it. I'd rather give up everything I am than see my child die.
            I dont want to live in a country where parents can "kill" their kids because of a religion belief.
            actually you are in such a country. But Squak and the judge are absolutely correct. A country that does not protect the helpless is a lawless country. I would go further and say that the child should be removed from the parents custody, they have shown themselves unfit to parent.
            ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

            Comment


            • #51
              The jury's verdict is in.

              http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/articl ... /305220063
              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
              by Thomas Henry Huxley

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Pego
                http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo

                Minnesota mother and her son "disappeared". The boy has been told (probably by her), the chemo will kill him.
                They've now been returned to Minnesota and the boy has been removed from his parents' custody.

                http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/25/minnes ... ced.chemo/

                Comment

                Working...
                X