What would you do?

[CerebralEcstasy]

We may wish to cite her death as evidence that the doctors were wrong, however, they will equally cite that if they had had a chance to treat her immediately instead of waiting for some court's decision that she would still be alive today.

 

They likely would say that, and it may be true. However, it doesn't change the fact that they were unethical in forcing her to be treated. Being a physician doesn't allow you to impose your ideals/beliefs and so forth on a another human being.

 

I have many friends who are Muslim, they choose to abstain from Pork for religious reasons, my guess is that they would also adamantly refuse organ transplants from pig to human. (If I am wrong in this, please correct me.)

 

Say for instance we could use the stomach of the pig to replace the cancerous stomach of a Muslim patient. This patient will die if he/she does not receive this treatment. Based on their beliefs, should I as their practitioner overrule what they wish? No. It is my job, and duty to uphold their rights.

 

It is unethical for me to force someone to do my will, no matter how well intentioned I am. In the event that the patient dies, I would fully expect that their family would sue me for the undue hardship I had caused. Not only to the individual who has passed away, but also the grief I had put them through.

 

Should they survive, whatever harm I have caused them emotionally also could be sued for.

 

Most people who have these sorts of directives, have already made their minds up prior to the event occuring. Jehovah's Witnesses have signed blood directives - which in all other cases are considered legally binding.

 

One might argue that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not encourage independent thought when it comes to such matters, and that children/young adults wouldn't have had enough life experience to seriously consider the implications of their decisions.

 

But if you stop to think, wouldn't this trickle out into other areas of law? If we're saying youth aren't capable of making decisions related to their health, why are we saying that they are capable of premeditating murder, and so on and so forth.

[Zythryn]

I understand your feelings there. The first case on this thread deals with someone with cystic fibrosis. They will never be able to live again (with current technology) without a machine doing their breathing for them. They realize that they would be dead without the machine and do not want to be kept alive. To me this is an informed decision.

 

Agreed, however, the original patient is also 17. Leaving the decision in the hands of the mother.

 

The JW girl in Canada may have also been making an informed decision. Can't say without reading the actual article stating the situation. The judge decided he did not believe she was. In that matter, what makes the judge and doctor a better decision maker than the parents?

 

It could be argued that a judge is impartial while the parents can't be. The doctor also has a better chance at being impartial and may have a better understanding of the ailment in some cases.

 

No one in my opinion should be penalized for seeking medical advice. Nor should a doctor be able to force his own views or opinions on someone's medical health. It is an unfortuneate event, but if the person were to want to die, and were litterally dieing, the only pause would be to determine that the desire to die was truly being communicated.

 

Whole-heartedly agreed.

[cwes99_03]

Of course I meant that last statement you quoted in the sense that they were literally dieing on the table. I do not support assisted suicides, but the removal of machines that are keeping one alive can be made, in my opinion by the patient.

 

That being said, you agian pointed out that the person was 17. My bet is that a judge in this case would agree that while 17 years of age, the person was more than wise enough about their condition and capable of making such a decision. However, the doctor does not have that luxury, and without an advanced medical directive, or the consent of the gaurdian, he must prolong the individuals life until such time that the individual can sign an AMD.

 

Impartial judges probably do exist. However, seeing court case after court case go through where you know a different judge would have ruled differently (such as the recent 5-4 decisions by the supreme court in the US) it is not easy to assume impartiality on the side of the judge.

 

I would however rather leave my decision in his hands than in the hands of a jury of my peers.

[TheBigDog]

When in doubt save the life.

 

Bill

[cwes99_03]

So I guess the next question then would be, does the patient then have the right to sue if the doctor erred on the side of caution? Hopefully not, despite any emotional distress. I'm speaking strictly for the case of this 17 year old with no AMD.

[DarkColoredLight]

I went with the mother.

 

The son doesn't see any hope, so he hopes for the inevitable.

 

If anything he can sue me when he gets better. :D