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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


you know what? shes 14.. shes not yet able to make decisions for herself. religion too, even if shes been brainwashed and indoctrinated into some silly belief system by her parents. she is still considered not capable of making realistic choices fo rherself yet, so... im sorry if little sallys feelings got hurt, but if its an emergency, guess what, people are saving your life and taking your best interests at heart. deal with it.




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


I think you're right, i think the article may be wording that wrong. It does seem more like the psychiatric evaluations would come after her refusal of the transfusion, rather than at the time of signing the papers.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 




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.



If you continue to keep that belief and follow that practice when you become a doctor, then i think you will be a very good doctor



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Government/hospitals should just make it possible for Jehovah's Witnesses to just donate and store their own blood just in case they need a transfusion. Problem solved.

..and I don't think parents should be legally allowed to let their kids bleed to death.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by riley]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by chise61
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.


You forgot the next line!!!

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


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


That was the hospital that gave her the option to sign that "directive" and had the psychiatrists evaluate her.

That doesn't mean it was done "legally"!



Originally posted by chise61

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.



According to the "law of the land" in Manitoba, where this took place, this paper she signed wouldn't hold water, she should never have been given the choice or option of signing this "directive" and making this choice (being a minor) in the first place, according to the law.

How can the hospital be held responsible for violating her (the minors) rights when their was a court order to give her a blood transfusion?



The then-14-year-old Jehovah's Witness, identified only as A.C., received a court-ordered blood transfusion in 2006 at a Winnipeg hospital to treat internal bleeding from her bowel associated with Crohn's disease.
******SKIP******
After lawyers for the child welfare agency obtained an order from Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench, the girl was given three units of blood.


I do believe the law would trump any paper the hospital let the minor sign saying she didn't want a blood transfusion .

You'd have to blame the Monitoba law or the court system, NOT the hospital!!!

[edit on 6/28/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Keyhole
 


I guess you didn't read beyond the post of mine that you are quoting from, if you read further you will see that i have already conceded to jd140 on the matter of the advandced medical directive. If you go back to this post....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And read the posts between jd140 and myself you will see this, my last reply to him is 4 posts above this one.



As far as this....


How can the hospital be held responsible for violating her (the minors) rights when their was a court order to give her a blood transfusion?




You'd have to blame the Monitoba law or the court system, NOT the hospital!!!




Believing the girl's life to be at risk, doctors contacted Child and Family Services, which deemed A.C. to be "a child in need of protection." After lawyers for the child welfare agency obtained an order from Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench, the girl was given three units of blood.


ca.news.yahoo.com...


It was the hospital that brought the court system into this matter by contacting Child and family services.

Even though i believe that her rights were violated, i also stated....



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.


From this post.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I'm really tired of the government and other people deciding what others should be doing with their own body.

People keep saying she was obviously brain washed by her religion and her parents were horrible blah blah blah...but who are any of us to be telling ANYONE what the heck they should be doing with their body or their child's body?

It's not like they are making her do anything against her will and they have her best interests at heart.

I imagine that the same people who think that others shouldn't be allowed to decide what sort of treatments themselves or THEIR CHILDREN should recieve are the same who would have no problem with the government forcing people to get vaccinated in a pandemic.

No one is sticking ANYTHING into my body that I don't want there. There's only a couple things I can think of that would be worse than someone putting something inside my body that has the potential of doing harm to me.

Yes, a blood transfusion has a very, very low chance of hurting someone but where in the heck do you draw the line?

Just like the kid with chemo. Chemo can kill and it makes you sick as hell. No one has any right to forcibly put something like that into anyone's body.

I'm sorry but I also fail to see how the government has more of a right to say what is right for you child than you are. Only in circumstances of violence/physical/mental anguish, things that a parent forces upon a child to intend harm, can someone step in.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

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.


Not reaching and not jabbing... just pointing out the easiest example.

Forget about God and the Bible. Millions of children have died throughout history in wars fought over religion.

I was responding to the quote "no child should die because of religion" and making the point that millions already have, against their will. If this child makes the choice to die because of her religion she should be allowed to do so. Less government intervention in people's lives please.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Letting her die would be a solution
most idiots like here who complains right after they're saved are just disgusting,that kind of idiots who dont even know the chance they get.

Hypocrisy and idiocy

its her right to be healed and its her right if she wanna end like a bag of dead meat.

I call it brainwashing and stupidity.

anyways, if she passed away, her family would probably sue the hospital.
she dont even understand her luck to be alive today.


And you dare all talking about "denying ignorance" ?

what an irony.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
This is another prime example how governments want to control every aspect of our lives. No organization or person should have any juristiction over individual rights, unless they would somehow endanger others with their actions.

It is almost comical to see people get on their high horse and sanctimonius, government-knows-best, "it's the law"-attack mode -
give it a few months, compulsory swine-flu vaccines for everyone and they are all here crying "how the PTP can do this to me, it is my body, yadda yadda". Please, grow up, develop some moral fibre and a backbone while you're at it.

Everyone else, have a nice day


[edit on 30-6-2009 by Deadpan]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deadpan

It is almost comical to see people get on their high horse and sanctimonius, government-knows-best, "it's the law"-attack mode -


It is how some people rationalize the abuses they are being subjected to and cope with the loss of so many rights and freedoms.

But those people are 'repeaters' and are dangerous to us all... for many reasons.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
They got this totally wrong. When a doctor forces you to take a treatment, he/she is violating your rights.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join