Jehovah's Witnesses and the Health and court services.

ircoha

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0425/coombe.html refers as does
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0424/blood.html

They both relate to the same parents.

Ms K had claimed that the transfusion was a breach of her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and that she was entitled to refuse medical treatment.

She said the hospital had committed assault and trespass on her person by giving her the transfusion.

Just wondering is the hospital indemnified against a claim for negligence in the event that the transfusion is not given.

The second case is more distressing in so far as the parent knew the issue would arise after the birth of the first child but they still went ahead.

Sleepy

Can't legislation stating that all patients of the health service will be treated according to best medical practice irresepective of religious beliefs?

Or does it violate some bill of rights which allows people to commit murder/suicide by stupidity?

The_Minister

If I am of sound mind, and I don't want treatment, then I should be able to say no.

seamus

The_Minister wrote: »

If I am of sound mind, and I don't want treatment, then I should be able to say no.

You should also be required to sign a piece paper expressingly indicating your wishes to not have this life-saving treatment, so that no-one can screw the doctor or the hospital later on.

Sleepy

The_Minister wrote: »

If I am of sound mind, and I don't want treatment, then I should be able to say no.

So Euthenasia should only be allowed for the religious?

TBH, I'm in favour of allowing euthenasia in the case of terminal cases but to allow an otherwise healthy person to kill themselves because of religious beliefs seems to be stretching it too far to me.

There's also the argument that someone who holds religion as worth dying for isn't of sound mind.

Gurgle

The_Minister wrote: »

If I am of sound mind, and I don't want treatment, then I should be able to say no.

You are allowed to refuse treatment.
Just check yourself out & go home. We'll pick up your corpse in a few days.

You have the right to refuse recommended treatment, even though such refusal could result in your death. Should you have the right to make that choice for your children?

IMO, there is only one answer to that: NO!

Cianos

Why should the state have ownership over my own life?

If I am unquestionably of sound mind and choose to die for religious beliefs, I should be able to do so freely.

ArthurDent

I can't see in the judgement where it says why it's ok to ignore the choice of the woman - she seemed to be knowingly and willingly refusing treatment for herself - not her baby (in the Ms K case). I've no problem with the dr's treating the babys in this or any other case - bur surely you have a right (if you are of sound mind) to refuse treatment for yourself. Ok I personally think you have to be barking mad and incredibly selfish to refuse treatment and potentially die just after you have given birth to a baby...but surely you do have a right to do this?

seamus

ArthurDent wrote: »

I can't see in the judgement where it says why it's ok to ignore the choice of the woman - she seemed to be knowingly and willingly refusing treatment for herself - not her baby (in the Ms K case). I've no problem with the dr's treating the babys in this or any other case - bur surely you have a right (if you are of sound mind) to refuse treatment for yourself. Ok I personally think you have to be barking mad and incredibly selfish to refuse treatment and potentially die just after you have given birth to a baby...but surely you do have a right to do this?

From what I remember, the doctors convinced the court that the woman couldn't comprehend the seriousness of her situation (she's a foreign national), which means that she wasn't in a position to make an informed decision.
In addition, there was no known next of kin in this country, so they believed that the best interests of the child were to save the mother's life through whatever means necessary.

Yes, I'm all for "die if you want to, you idiot", but in this case I feel that the doctors were 100% justified in their actions.

AceofSpades001

I can't imagine what the outcome would have been if the Court held that there had been a trespass committed by the Hospital on her, the damages would have to be nominal considering that she would have otherwise died. Of course then the issue of court fees comes up which will be well up in the price range. As for a breach of her constitutional rights, not all constitutional rights are equal (for instance regarding abortion in Ireland, the right to life of the mother outweighs the right to life of the unborn whereby the pregnancy constitutes a serious threat to the life of the mother). So does this case suggest that the rights of the child outweigh the right to bodily integrity? It does raise a problem regarding any parent refusing treatment, where's the cut off point whereby the court will say that the best interests of the child cannot be used as a reason to obtain a court order in this situation i.e. age of children, number of children, surviving partner etc. I hope that aspect of the case is not used in further cases and this case will be chalked down as simply where there was nobody available to give an informed consent.

As for is the hospital imdemnified against negligence, if they hadn't given her the transfusion but suspected that she was not of sound mind and didn't realise the consequences of her actions, or that she couldn't make an informed consent, and then didn't get some sort of psychiatric evaluation, then I think they would have been negligent. (I could be wrong, don't take my word as gospel but that's what I think).

Akrasia

Sleepy wrote: »

So Euthenasia should only be allowed for the religious?

Its not Euthenasia, its martyrdom.

They are prepared to die to please their god.

Its an inalienable right to sacrifice your own life for your convictions as long as you don't harm other people.

Hunger strikers risk their lives regularly to make a political point for all manner of things, should they be force fed? (bearing in mind that this is strictly condemned by the world medical association as inhumane)

TBH, I'm in favour of allowing euthenasia in the case of terminal cases but to allow an otherwise healthy person to kill themselves because of religious beliefs seems to be stretching it too far to me.

Its not up to you. If people feel strongly enough about something that they think its worth dying for, who are you to stop them (unless they're directly hurting other people). The act of preventing them could be potentially much more damaging to their welfare. (Waco siege as an extreme example, but on a more practical level, interning people in mental institutions indefinitely and drugging them as you try to re-educate them into not believing in their political or religious belief is a pretty horrendous idea and could very easily become counter productive and actually strengthen support for their cause)

There's also the argument that someone who holds religion as worth dying for isn't of sound mind.

I dunno, there is an argument that anyone who believes in any religion is somehow delusional, but given that we accept religious belief in our society, it is actually more rational for someone to sacrifice their earthy life if saving it would risk offending their god and the accompanying eternal damnation

As long as religion is a part of our society, we are going to have to deal with extremists and there will be no logical argument to prove that their particular set of beliefs are less valid than the mainstream cult. (it is logically acceptable to claim that more moderate is more valid)

Chinafoot

Akrasia wrote: »

Its an inalienable right to sacrifice your own life for your convictions as long as you don't harm other people.

That's all well and good for the first case, but not for the unborn twins. By refusing the blood transfusion immediately after their birth she's causing them harm. Ultimately religion is a choice and those babies haven't been given that choice. Why should they die for someone elses beliefs?

Boston

Chinafoot wrote: »

That's all well and good for the first case, but not for the unborn twins. By refusing the blood transfusion immediately after their birth she's causing them harm. Ultimately religion is a choice and those babies haven't been given that choice. Why should they die for someone elses beliefs?

Steps carefully into politics thread: How would refusing blood after they where born cause them to die? Or have I miss read your statement.

Chinafoot

Boston wrote: »

Steps carefully into politics thread: How would refusing blood after they where born cause them to die? Or have I miss read your statement.

Reading the links would help

The babies are severely anaemic and

rte news wrote:

Doctors believe the babies are at risk of death or serious life-long disability and need to be delivered early. They say the babies will need a blood transfusion in the minutes and weeks after their birth.

The doctors wanted to perform a blood transfusion while the babies are in the womb as that is the normal procedure but the mother refused.

That, imo, is putting the babies at risk. Hence the court intervention to give the hospital permission to perform the transfusion.

Boston

So in conclusion I did miss read your statement.

berliner

Kick all this PC nonsense into touch.Doesn't matter what religion you are,hospitals job is preserve life no matter what.No court cases or soft liberal nonsense.End of story.

Akrasia

Chinafoot wrote: »

That's all well and good for the first case, but not for the unborn twins. By refusing the blood transfusion immediately after their birth she's causing them harm. Ultimately religion is a choice and those babies haven't been given that choice. Why should they die for someone elses beliefs?

They shouldn't. They are innocents and they should not be denied medical treatment because of the religious conviction of someone else (even if it is their birth mother)

Galmay

The courts did their job to protect the life of the children, and will do so in any future cases also. As for Mrs. K, she was deemed to be not of sound mind at the time the transfusion was required and therefore the doctors proceeded with the best course of action to preserve her life. She had argued at the time that she should have been given a mixture of coca-cola and tomatoes instead of blood. Enough said!

I think an important point that needs to be made is that the parents of the twins allowed this situation to develop. As the mothers blood was D neg and their first child(now 4 yrs old) was D pos, the mother developed an antibody called Anti-D which attacks any D pos blood cells. This results in the mothers immune system ie the anti-D crossing the placenta and attacking the foetus in any subsequent pregnancy where the foetus has D pos blood, hence giving rise to aneamia, a condition known as Haemolytic Disease of the Newborn. This is what has occured in the case of the twins. Normally to avoid this occuring, the mother takes a product called Anti-D after her first pregnancy which will stop her producing her own Anti-D. Jehovahs witnesses also prohibit the taking of this Anti-D product. I think this borders along the lines of child neglect/ child abuse. Any thoughts?

AceofSpades001

Galmay wrote: »

I think this borders along the lines of child neglect/ child abuse. Any thoughts?

Now that's interesting, problem is that a fetus isn't classified as a child. There's also the issue of whether this condition that the twins have was guaranteed to occur without these anti-D drugs or if there was only a risk of it occurring. Does anybody know if there was a court order sought for the blood transfusion in the womb? Or maybe to force the mother to take these anti-D products? Or any other case of that ever happening?

leninbenjamin

AceofSpades001 wrote: »

Now that's interesting, problem is that a fetus isn't classified as a child.

this is irrelevant isn't it? our constitution states the 'right to life of the unborn' but doesn't go as far to say they are children.

AceofSpades001

leninbenjamin wrote: »

this is irrelevant isn't it? our constitution states the 'right to life of the unborn' but doesn't go as far to say they are children.

I was just throwing ideas out there but is it irrelevent? I mean sure it protects the right to life of the unborn, but basically its only function is to prevent abortion. But could you apply it here in regards child abuse seeing as how there is no threat to the life of the child until after it is born? At which point it is then protected by children's rights.

Another thing that hasn't been stated is that when she went into the hospital and listed her religion, she listed herself as Roman Catholic, talk about digging a hole for yourself.

Galmay

The problem is that by refusing the Anti-D there is a threat to the life of the unborn. The twins are being induced at 32 weeks as they would most likely not survive to full term in the mothers womb without transfusion therapy. Therefore, is the constitution protecting the right to life of the unborn?

bonkey

AceofSpades001 wrote: »

sure it protects the right to life of the unborn, but basically its only function is to prevent abortion.

Has that already been established in court?

I ask because I would see it differently. The Constitutional Amendment was proposed in order to prevent abortion, I agree, but that does not mean that the legal implication of it is limited to abortion....unless this has already been established in court.

The_Minister

If you don't think that they can say no to medicine, in order to protect the child, then you have to stop pregnant women drinking and smoking.