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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
So forced vaccinations are OK also without parental consent. Interesting.
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.
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!
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?