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

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
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!

And so forced vaccinations come back into play. If the state determines the vaccination will save the child from catching the targeted disease, and refusing the vaccination is endangering the life of the child, then the state should intervene! Right?

Or is all this over religion vs. anti-religion?

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


There were other options the doctors never even considered,Nop just because I was a nursing student, I don't think I know more than the doctors, however I do know they were picking a specific person, religion, whatever to target for Public Humiliation/ harrassment, etc... I know enough to figure out when someone is being targetted just because of their beleifs. I've dealt with it myself. And If I wasn't compatible for my children I would call on all family members to aid in helping my children by being tested and if approved; donating, We have a close knit family like that. I wasn't flaming anybody, sorry if you took it as such.

Anyway I say let these people make their own decisions and what happens, let it be, Keeps the population down, and that also alludes to the right to die, people should not be stripped of this right, either. So if she was terminally ill, and there was no treatment available, shold she not have the right to choose a way to end it? To die in dignity rather than suffer at the hands of some unthinkable disease killing her daily, causing her excrutiating pain??? If it were my child, I would say they have the right to die with dignity and not suffer and go on to a better place, it would hurt me immensely, But I'd at least know they would have peace. But, hey not everyone is as enlightened as some of us. Don't feel bad, you're certainly not alone.

Blood transfusion is old technology. Doctors just revert to what they are used to or have been trained in. But the medical community is slowly waking up to the risks of blood transfusions and bloodless treatment choices.
www.rch.org.au...

www.watchtower.org...

Her right for the best possible treatment was taken away from her and her parents.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Either you are trolling for a fight, or light bends around you (google the effects of density on light). The state does mandate certain vaccinations for the protection of other children. My point, however, was that the child is not the one to make that decision. If given the choice of whether or not to get a shot of any kind, almost every child on the planet would choose NO! That decision is not left to the child receiving the shot, but to educated adults.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Well that development issue isn't solved till your mid 20's plus women have chemical imbalances every month, are women and 18 to 24 year olds incapable of sound judgment too?

reply to post by The Great Day


Thank you, you stated a very good point!!! I still say however, that they were targetting a specific group to monsterize. It's sad but it so often happens.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by The Great Day

 

Thank you, you stated a very good point!!!

I still say however, that they were targetting a specific group to monsterize. It's sad but it so often happens.

Yes i would tend to agree. Its sad to say she may have had a better chance receiving an alternative treatment if she left out the religious reasons for avoiding blood.

reply to post by ldyserenity


So, apparently you were on the staff of that hospital and were involved personally in this child's case, otherwise you would not know "There were other options the doctors never even considered" or that "I do know they were picking a specific person, religion, whatever to target for Public Humiliation/ harrassment, etc". If not, then you are speculating.

As for flaming, when you say things like "Please read the OP before you open your mouth.", "You know nothing", and "hey not everyone is as enlightened as some of us. Don't feel bad, you're certainly not alone.", you are flaming. You are making assumptions that I am uneducated and not paying attention to the topic at hand. You don't know me, and we have never debated here on ATS before. Try not to assume you know anything about me. I have not assumed anything about you.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts
I didn't put to "please read the OP..." wrong person. That wasn't me. yeah well, in that last post I did flame, hey why not, I was already told I was so...why not?

No I wasn't there, but there was never any implication they even explored other options. Just going by the article in question.
So IMO, if they didn't state they explored other options and this was the one that seemed best suited to her needs then obviously, it isn't too far a cry to assume they never explored other options at all. Right? But, simply if she had stated medical reasons as not accepting the blood, she probably would've been met with more respect. I know personally that doctors have been known to call this people crazy and unbalanced, I have worked in the medical field.


[edit on 27-6-2009 by ldyserenity]

reply to post by ldyserenity


You are absolutely correct. My apologies. (concerning the quote).

There was also no indication that they did not explore other options. Again, you are speculating.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


It's okay, mistakes are made we are only human. Honestly, I do not try to flame people on here, if I do it's usually jokingly and usually followed by a

...
You're apology is accepted and I apologize for the flame I did send out.

This happened when she was 14. She is now 18, maybe she should stop being an ungrateful brat and write a thank you note to the doctors for saving her life.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

There was also no indication that they did not explore other options. Again, you are speculating.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Yeah that's also true, but it should've been reported if there were other options explored, that is a big problem with media, we never get the whole and true account.

However, I know Canada has some problems with their standardized healthcare, one being that the doctors are not always fully aware or capable of using many advanced medical treatments. And sometimes they are very pressed for time as there are long and unending lists of patients awaiting treatment also. I just hope this is not what's in store for America.

reply to post by ldyserenity


It's not a problem. We all just get too passionate on certain topics. I'm no saint in regards to this. I could tell that this was something that you were passionate about, hence I did not accuse you of trolling. I have adopted a rule for myself to not post responses if I'm in that mode. I wait until I'm calm and can debate in a civilized manner. Too much of that around here, and it doesn't add anything of any substance to the debate. My point in all of this is that this girl was too young to make such a life or death decision, and if her parents were willing to let her die rather than allow the doctors to save her life, then the state was perfectly in it's rights to step in. I would be interested to see the particulars in the case (as they were not part of the article the OP linked to) to see if it was the only alternative. If other options were not explored, then your position is correct. If they were, then the state did the right thing.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

It's not a problem. We all just get too passionate on certain topics. I'm no saint in regards to this. I could tell that this was something that you were passionate about, hence I did not accuse you of trolling. I have adopted a rule for myself to not post responses if I'm in that mode. I wait until I'm calm and can debate in a civilized manner. Too much of that around here, and it doesn't add anything of any substance to the debate. My point in all of this is that this girl was too young to make such a life or death decision, and if her parents were willing to let her die rather than allow the doctors to save her life, then the state was perfectly in it's rights to step in. I would be interested to see the particulars in the case (as they were not part of the article the OP linked to) to see if it was the only alternative. If other options were not explored, then your position is correct. If they were, then the state did the right thing.

Exactly...But I have seen here in the US too many times the state making these decisions without any other options being explored and the parents being demonized, and later found out there were other avenues they could've explored. The state tends to Jump into a court strategy without knowing or caring to listen to any other side!

[edit on 27-6-2009 by ldyserenity]

Reply to post by The Great Day

kindly show me what bloodless option is avalible in a potential life or death situation.

If you need blood emergently you need blood. There is no substitute.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by ldyserenity


I agree that all options should be explored, but the indication (without knowing the entire case history) is that this was an emergency situation and that time was of the essence. I'd be willing to bet that the decision was made within 30 minutes of the parent's and child's refusal. Like I said in my previous post, without knowing the entire case history, we are just speculating as to whether or not this was necessary.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
First of all, it still takes up to ten years to discover hiv and hep b

Hmmm, doesn't seem like it takes THAT long to test positive, ...

How soon after exposure can HIV infection be detected?

With the HIV antibody tests used in New York State, virtually all people who are infected will test positive within one month of being infected. Most people will test positive even sooner.

When Should I Be Tested? - www.aids.org

After a possible HIV exposure:

An HIV test will not detect the presence of the HIV virus immediately after exposure. Statistics show that 96% (perhaps higher) of all infected individuals will test positive within 2 to 12 weeks.

How Long Does it Take for Blood to Test HBsAg-Positive After Exposure to HBV? - www.cdc.gov

HBsAg will be detected in an infected person’s blood an average of 4 weeks (range: 1–9 weeks) after exposure to the virus.

The parents and the child weren't worried about contracting some disease from the blood transfusion though, blood transfusions are just against their religious beliefs.

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

The girl and her parents opposed the transfusion, based on their religious belief that the Bible forbids ingesting blood.

reply to post by Keyhole


It's true they were based on their religious beleifs, but how does that make it of any less significance? It doesn't plain and simple. She was 14, she could have her own child, raise it, and make decisions for it, yet she can't decide what to do about her own body? Doesn't make sense at all. I will reiterate, if she in fact beleived that if she died she would be better off or that her God would save her, than she should be able to do as she pleases accordingly. With correct signing of waivers to dismiss the hospital from any legal retribution/responsibility. That is my standpoint. Why NOT? I bet she had to sign a waiver for being treated the transfusion. Did they force her into that? Don't tell me they didn't cause my son was in the hospital and I had to sign a waiver in case he needed a transfusion, which I signed under the "Parent will donate own blood...blah blah blah" section.
And those stastistics you have posted about how soon it can be found, well it is my understanding that these are still contended by many doctors and scientists. So this is all debateable. Some say these are the correct numbers and some say it's far less likely it'd be found that quickly.

I can see both sides of this arguement. One the one hand i can see where the girl felt that her rights were violated, as well as the parent's rights. But on the other hand i do think that she was too young to make that decision herself.

There's also the fact that she went to the hospital for treatment in the first place. She said herself that she didn't want to die. She went seeking help from proffessionals to help her live. I'm sure that both her and her parents were aware of the fact that the doctors would advise a transfusion.

I'm gonna have to say that in this case, if there were no other options, that simply because of her age they made the right choice.

Perhaps people with these beliefs (knowing that their child has a disease like this) should find a hospital and doctor that will respect their wishes if this this kind of situation occurs, and draw up a written agreement between all parties beforehand.