It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Girl's forced blood transfusion didn't violate rights: top court

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Girl's forced blood transfusion didn't violate rights: top court


ca.news.yahoo.com

Canada's top court on Friday dismissed the case of a Manitoba girl a Jehovah's Witness who said her rights were violated when she was forced to get a blood transfusion against her will when she was a minor.

In a 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that such medical interventions are constitutionally sound, striking a balance between the choice of the child and the state's protection of the child.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Summary:

Basically, this girl who suffers from Crohn's disease was bleeding internally and admitted to the hospital when she was 14. She is a Jehovah's Witness so she did not want any blood transfusion to be part of her treatment. Her doctors at the hospital involved Child Protective Services, who got a court order forcing her to receive a blood transfusion against her will.

She claimed that her human rights were violated because she was forced to undergo a procedure which is against her religion (the ingesting of blood). Her case went all the way to the Supreme Court but they maintain her rights were not violated.

My take:

The government can force you to take medical treatment you don't want...how does this NOT violate your human rights? This girl stated " I didn't want to die, which is why I went to the hospital for treatment. I just wanted the best medical treatment without blood." Sounds more than reasonable to me. The fact that her parents agreed with her decision and their wishes as guardians were completely superceded by the government is even more outrageous than the fact that this girl had no sovereignty over her own body.


A.C. had signed an advanced medical directive stating she didn't want a blood transfusion. Three psychiatrists who assessed her all concluded she understood her medical condition and the consequences of not getting a transfusion.

Under Manitoba law, people under the age of 16 can be given medical treatment against their will.


How long is it until YOU are deemed to not know what is best for you? How long until YOU are deemed not to know what is best for your own children, not because you fail to provide for them but because you disagree with your government healthcare provider's opinions on treatment, experimental drugs vaccinations, medical tests, and invasive procedures?

ca.news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I don't think the government should have any control over someone's body. Period.

Talk about natural rights and personal rights? Your body is the most important thing you have and only you should have control over it. Being a "minor" is a government categorization, and since this transcends government, being a minor shouldn't matter. If you are a minor and consent to something that might put you at risk, yes you should be informed that you might die, but it's your own decision. It's better than doing something against your beliefs or desires because the government makes you.

This is how I feel about this case, the boy who was forced to get chemotherapy, and this is also how I feel about abortion. But let me be clear that I'm being conservative by supporting deregulation of government in terms of a person's body.

If government didn't exist, if laws didn't exist, if society didn't exist... our bodies and true control of them still would. You see?

But in a related matter, I've heard of Jehovah's Witnesses having special procedures for blood transfusions which cycles her own blood and utilizes blood grafting. And some doctors specialize in bloodless procedures, aka procedures without transfusions in cases which would usually need them. I do think it is more risky and expensive, but it is always an option. It's like they didn't even try, though.

It's wrong that the court ruled this way.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Had this girl been 18, I would have agreed with you. However, she was a minor, so the state should intervene in such cases. If she had been an adult, this would not have happened. If we gave every child the choice of whether or not to receive medical treatment, not one would allow themselves to get a shot or stitches or any other painful procedure. I would also point out that a blood transfusion is not 'ingesting' blood. It never entered her digestive tract.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 



If we gave every child the choice of whether or not to receive medical treatment, not one would allow themselves to get a shot or stitches or any other painful procedure.


So forced vaccinations are OK also without parental consent. Interesting.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
It didn't violate her rights????!!!!! WHAT KIND OF BS IS THAT????!!!!! Her rights were most definately violated. WTF???? I am outraged!!!!
WHAT happens if this poor child gets AIDS because of foul blood and it's the governments fault? Will they take responsibility? Most likely not! What about Hepatitis? What if she gets that. I hope she sues them until they're blue in the d**** FACE!!!!! This government is out of control. Where the HE** Are our rights going???? DISGUSTING!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
So forced vaccinations are OK also without parental consent. Interesting.


Did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. I am quite capable of doing that for myself. The parents were not mentioned in the OP, and they were not mentioned in my post. Only the child was mentioned.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Had she not gotten the transfusion, she would likely be dead now. Apparently you don't have children. Also, blood is screened now for HIV. When was the last time you heard of someone contracting HIV from a blood transfusion??? If they had not given her the transfusion, you'd be here screaming that they just let her die! Just more proof that common sense isn't very common anymore!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Didn't mention her parents?

"The fact that her parents agreed with her decision and their wishes as guardians were completely superceded by the government is even more outrageous than the fact that this girl had no sovereignty over her own body."

Please read the OP before you open your mouth.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Aren't the parents of a minor supposed to be the true decision makers of a child's welfare, and not the state?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


hm, since when did a number become an indication of ones ability to make sound decisions?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Had this girl been 18, I would have agreed with you. However, she was a minor, so the state should intervene in such cases. If she had been an adult, this would not have happened.


Exactly. At the old hospital I worked at we used to have a judge on call 24/7 to issue orders for children in life threatening situations that were of the JW faith.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Had she not gotten the transfusion, she would likely be dead now. Apparently you don't have children. Also, blood is screened now for HIV. When was the last time you heard of someone contracting HIV from a blood transfusion??? If they had not given her the transfusion, you'd be here screaming that they just let her die! Just more proof that common sense isn't very common anymore!

First of all, it still takes up to ten years to discover hiv and hep b and people are funny critters, they lie about their actions when giving blood, I've personally have witnessed this. I do have children; luckily I have O pos blood and only I would be giving them any blood as they're all positives, too, never would I allow them to give my children a strangers blood ever! Plus she's fourteen at the time...here 14 is old enough to make your own decisions about your body. Except in sexuality, the age of consent is 16.She would not have died as Other Posts have mentioned there are other options. You know nothing... I was a nursing student and I know of all the other options like her parents being able to donate thier blood for the transfusion, or how about high volumes of iron so she could produce more of her own blood.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
So forced vaccinations are OK also without parental consent. Interesting.


*cough* *cough* sorry I was busy choking on your Strawman

Where exactly did he say that :shk:



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Aren't the parents of a minor supposed to be the true decision makers of a child's welfare, and not the state?


To a point if a parent is willfully endangering a child then its a different story. What if a parent feels that abuse is correct and within thier rights? Is that okay?



[edit on 6/27/09 by FredT]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Maybe people just shouldn't choose a religion until they turn 18.

That would fix all sorts of issues. It would be unfortunate if they decided they wanted to risk their lives because of their faith and something terrible happened, and then they changed religions later on. Or could have changed religions.

Does a minor not have the right to choose a religion and follow it's practices themselves?

That's weird.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


Her parents were not mentioned in the two paragraph snippet you posted, which comprised the entire OP. The part you quoted is from your response to your own OP. Let's remember that OP stands for either Original Post or Original Poster. It is quite clear from my wording that I was refering to the Original Post. Regardless, I never mentioned the parents, and yes, sometimes the state has to intervene when parents make really bad decisions regarding their children. This involved the life of the child, and no child should die because of religion, PERIOD!!!

Now please go flame on someone else. I have been polite and calm in my posts.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


The state tells you that you can't beat your children, you can't have sex with your children, etc. If you make a decision that endangers the life of your child, then yes, the state should intervene!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by namehere
 


Apparently you skipped your teen years. Teenagers make stupid decisions on an almost hourly basis. It's not their fault, their brains are just in a massive chemical flux. According to your logic, we should let them vote, drink, etc. Some here are just trying to be argumentative, and today you will not get such an argument from me. I'm in my Zen place.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


So because you were a nursing student, you know more than the Doctors who were caring for this child. You are really going to stand by that statement? I am glad that you can be the donor for your own children, but if you were not a compatable donor, would you let your children die before you let them get a transfusion from a stranger???

Now, I have been calm and polite with each of you, is it too much to ask that you do the same? Flaming is not necessary to convey your point.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join