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