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

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
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.

I've never heard of a court hearing ever happening this quickly, never. Obviously, 30 minutes would be the fastest court case in the history of mankind. But, not to say you're wrong, I just never heard of the wheels of justice working that fast. In an emergancy, yes they would have to do the thing that's quickest and best for the person, but they certainly would not have gotten a court to even come near hearing the case in 30 minutes. That's what I contest here. She obviously doesn't think they gave her the care she felt she deserved. So according to her, they did not give her quality care, and what the heck happened to the customer is always right?

I just reread the article and saw this....

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.

Now if the hospital gave her the option to sign this directive and accepted it, then they legally were in the wrong and did violate her rights. Not only did they allow her to sign it, but they had not one, but three psychiatrists evaluate her understanding of it.

Sadly, in this country and it appears to be so in Canada as well, If you don't go to the hospital armed to the hilt with knowledge of alternative treatment options when your beleifs are in conflict with "Protocol" treatments, you're almost always at the mercy of the hospital and the court systems. I'm glad That I am well educated and have personal experience in the medical field! But, most of the time it isn't because of my beleifs, but with the quality of said treatments. Some that are more devastating then the disease/disorder they're using the treatment for. This is why I only go to the hospital AS A LAST RESORT.

reply to post by chise61


As a minor the advance directive isn't legal if she signed it.

Have to be 18 or older.

edit to add-

An advance directive is only used when a patient isn't able to make decisions about their healthcare any longer. For example if they are in a coma.

So this form wouldn't have come into play in this situation.

as01.ucis.dal.ca...

[edit on 27-6-2009 by jd140]

reply to post by jd140


You're right. But then the question of why accept it in the first place knowing that it isn't legal. That seems a ploy on their part to deceieve her in the first place, which is definitely morally wrong.

Edit to add : Just saw your addition, i forgot about that, that is a valid point.

[edit on 6/27/2009 by chise61]

reply to post by chise61


I'm willing to bet that the parents signed the form after she read it. They would have signed everything else. So either they signed it or the administrators over looked it.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Sadly, in this country and it appears to be so in Canada as well, If you don't go to the hospital armed to the hilt with knowledge of alternative treatment options when your beleifs are in conflict with "Protocol" treatments, you're almost always at the mercy of the hospital and the court systems. I'm glad That I am well educated and have personal experience in the medical field! But, most of the time it isn't because of my beleifs, but with the quality of said treatments. Some that are more devastating then the disease/disorder they're using the treatment for. This is why I only go to the hospital AS A LAST RESORT.

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

Apparently it has been a law for a while now.

reply to post by jd140


According to the article she signed it herself. Which is confusing because here the parents would be the ones to sign for a minor, but i don't know how things work in Canada. Being that they had three psychiatric consultations with her to confrime that she did indeed understand it, it falls in line that she also signed it.

reply to post by chise61


I worked as a patient admin for a few years and have had thousands of patients sign this form. I have never heard of psychiatrists being on hand when this form is signed.

They may have seen her after she refused treatment during the doctors visit, but I really doubt they sat there with her as the forms were being signed.

I think the article is incorrect on that portion.

Originally posted by FredT
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

 

"We must conclude that currently there are many patients receiving blood components who have no chance for a benefit from transfusion (the blood is not needed) and yet still have a significant risk of undesired effect. No physician would knowingly expose a patient to a therapy that cannot help but might hurt, but that is exactly what occurs when blood is transfused unnecessarily." —Transfusion-Transmitted Viral Diseases, 1987.


Are there legitimate and effective ways to manage serious medical problems without using blood? Happily, the answer is yes.

Though most surgeons have claimed that they gave blood only when absolutely necessary, after the AIDS epidemic arose their use of blood dropped rapidly. An editorial in Mayo Clinic Proceedings (September 1988) said that "one of the few benefits of the epidemic" was that it "resulted in various strategies on the part of patients and physicians to avoid blood transfusion." A blood-bank official explains: "What has changed is the intensity of the message, the receptivity of clinicians to the message (because of an increased perception of risks), and the demand for consideration of alternatives." —Transfusion Medicine Reviews, October 1989.

Note, there are alternatives! This becomes understandable when we review why blood is transfused.

The hemoglobin in the red cells carries oxygen needed for good health and life. So if a person has lost a lot of blood, it might seem logical just to replace it. Normally you have about 14 or 15 grams of hemoglobin in every 100 cubic centimeters of blood. (Another measure of the concentration is hematocrit, which is commonly about 45 percent.) The accepted "rule" was to transfuse a patient before surgery if his hemoglobin was below 10 (or 30 percent hematocrit). The Swiss journal Vox Sanguinis (March 1987) reported that "65% of [anesthesiologists] required patients to have a preoperative hemoglobin of 10 gm/dl for elective surgery."

But at a 1988 conference on blood transfusion, Professor Howard L. Zauder asked, "How Did We Get a 'Magic Number'?" He stated clearly: "The etiology of the requirement that a patient have 10 grams of hemoglobin (Hgb) prior to receiving an anesthetic is cloaked in tradition, shrouded in obscurity, and unsubstantiated by clinical or experimental evidence." Imagine the many thousands of patients whose transfusions were triggered by an 'obscure, unsubstantiated' requirement!

Some might wonder, 'Why is a hemoglobin level of 14 normal if you can get by on much less?' Well, you thus have considerable reserve oxygen-carrying capacity so that you are ready for exercise or heavy work. Studies of anemic patients even reveal that "it is difficult to detect a deficit in work capacity with hemoglobin concentrations as low as 7 g/dl. Others have found evidence of only moderately impaired function." —Contemporary Transfusion Practice, 1987.

While adults accommodate a low hemoglobin level, what of children? Dr. James A. Stockman III says: "With few exceptions, infants born prematurely will experience a decline in hemoglobin in the first one to three months . . . The indications for transfusion in the nursery setting are not well defined. Indeed, many infants seem to tolerate remarkably low levels of hemoglobin concentration with no apparent clinical difficulties." —Pediatric Clinics of North America, February 1986.



"Some authors have stated that hemoglobin values as low as 2 to 2.5 gm./100ml. may be acceptable. . . . A healthy person may tolerate a 50 percent loss of red blood cell mass and be almost entirely asymptomatic if blood loss occurs over a period of time." —Techniques of Blood Transfusion, 1982.

Such information does not mean that nothing need be done when a person loses a lot of blood in an accident or during surgery. If the loss is rapid and great, a person's blood pressure drops, and he may go into shock. What is primarily needed is that the bleeding be stopped and the volume in his system be restored. That will serve to prevent shock and keep the remaining red cells and other components in circulation.

Volume replacement can be accomplished without using whole blood or blood plasma.* Various nonblood fluids are effective volume expanders. The simplest is saline (salt) solution, which is both inexpensive and compatible with our blood. There are also fluids with special properties, such as dextran, Haemaccel, and lactated Ringer's solution. Hetastarch (HES) is a newer volume expander, and "it can be safely recommended for those [burn] patients who object to blood products." (Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, January/February 1989) Such fluids have definite advantages. "Crystalloid solutions [such as normal saline and lactated Ringer's solution], Dextran and HES are relatively nontoxic and inexpensive, readily available, can be stored at room temperature, require no compatibility testing and are free of the risk of transfusion-transmitted disease." —Blood Transfusion Therapy —A Physician's Handbook, 1989.

You may ask, though, 'Why do nonblood replacement fluids work well, since I need red cells to get oxygen throughout my body?' As mentioned, you have oxygen-carrying reserves. If you lose blood, marvelous compensatory mechanisms start up. Your heart pumps more blood with each beat. Since the lost blood was replaced with a suitable fluid, the now diluted blood flows more easily, even in the small vessels. As a result of chemical changes, more oxygen is released to the tissues. These adaptations are so effective that if only half of your red cells remain, oxygen delivery may be about 75 percent of normal. A patient at rest uses only 25 percent of the oxygen available in his blood. And most general anesthetics reduce the body's need for oxygen.

www.google.com...:en-ca&ei=PJ9GSqTtNJKyNujpmJ8B&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=alternatives+to+blood&spell =1

It's funny I read in the edmonton sun, I think, just today, that they were going to modify the rules to take into account the maturity of persons under 16 that were hitherto seen as unable to make conscious decisions concerning their well-being.
contradictions abound.

These situations are always a tough call and I am glad it is not my job to make that call.
While I totally understand the importance of religion and the many varying doctrines regarding health care, we are talking about a minor child here. This girl was only 14, that is pretty young to stake your life on a religious belief of the family. Kids tend to follow the religion of the parents until they get on their own and find themselves and their place in the world.

As painful as this is and as much as it seems like a violation, I think the state made the right call. IF....every possible option was considered. We don't really have enough information to know that. I find it odd that a Witness family with a sick child did not have a doctor that was respectful of their beliefs already set up. Then again the hospital could easily over ride that I suppose.

I believe strongly in patient autonomy, its should not even be a issue in itself. This 14 year old obviously knew she was going to die, the parents did too, yet they refused the transfusions due to religious beliefs. I would contend that the doctors treating her went too far. I think the transfusion was delivered due to an emergency instead of a ongoing treatment. Doctors are trained from the beginning to preserve life.

I think they had a small time frame to decide whether to let her die, or give her the transfusion, save her and deal with the ethical and lawful mess later. I am a religious man, and consider my life on earth less important than what my religion offers me. I would have honored their wishes, as long as they were well informed.

I am well into my third year in medical school and these ethical issues are my biggest concern. But I must draw the line somewhere. Some doctors draw the line at preserving life no matter what, and others take other factors into consideration before taking action. I have decided to always respect the patients decisions no matter how much I disagree. Its your damn body, if you want to die or refuse treatment I should never force treatment on you. Forcing someone to take unwanted treatment is no different than killing someone who doesn't want to die.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by DrChuck]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by DrChuck]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
no child should die because of religion, PERIOD!!!

What about the HUGE number of children that were killed directly by God in the Bible?

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
no child should die because of religion, PERIOD!!!

What about the HUGE number of children that were killed directly by God in the Bible?

Man you are reaching aren't you.

I bet you don't even believe in God, you just felt like taking a jab.

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
no child should die because of religion, PERIOD!!!

What about the HUGE number of children that were killed directly by God in the Bible?

Since you brought up that lovely peice of fictional literature... nevermind, it would stray me way off topic. But I would be interested in how this ancient book justifies letting a child die??? I think jd140 is correct, your just trolling for a fight, and I am too tired to give you one. NEXT!

reply to post by ldyserenity


It wouldn't require a hearing, just a court order, which is similar to a search warrant as far as what is required. The info is given to the judge and he or she issues the order. FredT would probably be able to address this better than I. It's been a very long day and I'm half asleep (work was brutal tonight). Best answer I can give with only half my brain working at this time. As I said before, we don't have all the facts in this case, and the article was limited in the scope of it's info, so we are all just speculating.

This is the corrupt nature of law and government. A bond is floated in the childs name based on the "birth certificate". The individual is viewed today, by government, as property and a commodity owned by the government. Government acts to manage the commodity for the business interests of the state. "Citizens" are property via the bond and corporate investment in this perverse fantasy linked to the Vatican/Zionist view of people as chattel that have zero entitlements. In other words everyone is really being viewed behind the scenes as slave / property and families have no real rights. They are the prospective "in name only" parents who being allowed by the state to rise the property so long as it meets the general acceptable standards of the government/corporate interests.

Birth Certificates are a bad thing. Just as most seemingly legal documents are an means used by government to get the individual to demonstrate their submission to false authority. Remember "Without Prejudice" when signing any so-called legal document including traffic tickets, hospital forms, whatever. Never surrender your constitutional rights. "Without Prejudice" is your first avenue of defense.

They did the proper thing, i think the court should remind her that she wouldnt be in court unless she received the transfusion.

If the parents denied the transfusion then CPS would need to intervene. Chrons disease is serious.

also if she was 18 then she could have a say, but since she was a minor she cannot decide. If the parents are willing to allow the child to die without doing a simple treatment to save her then its up to CPS to make the call.

thats just my 2cents

Originally posted by phi1618

Chrons disease is serious.

thats just my 2cents

Freedom is more serious...

That is just my two cents