Australian Judge: Doctors Can Give Blood to Jehovah’s Witness Girl During Labor

[phands]

Excellent - common sense at work....

This is what it looks like when the government says religion can’t be used as a tool to hurt people.
In Victoria, Australia, a 17-year-old Jehovah’s Witness is on the verge of giving birth. She’s tiny. The baby is larger than usual. There’s a good chance the bleeding during pregnancy could be excessive and the mother would need a blood transfusion. But because she’s a Witness, that’s forbidden. So doctors whose job it is to make sure she’s safe could be in a position where they have to watch her die a completely preventable death.
Thankfully, the justice system isn’t going to let that happen.
Justice Cameron Macaulay gave physicians at Mercy hospital the authority to give the girl blood as a “last resort” if a hemorrhage occurs on Sunday when her labor will be induced.
It didn’t come without a fight by her parents, though, who compared giving their daughter a life-saving blood transfusion to… rape.

The girl’s mother, who said she would not consent to the hospital administering blood to her daughter, told the court receiving a transfusion would have a significant impact on the girl’s wellbeing.
“Being forced to have that done against her will would be something like having violence done to her or being raped,” she said in a statement read to the court.
​

The judge, thankfully, wasn’t buying it. He urged the physicians to try drugs or stitches first, but barring those options, they could infuse the girl with blood if they saw it as a necessity.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...-blood-to-jehovahs-witness-girl-during-labor/

 

[Lion IRC]

Well waddya know, governments CAN tell women what they must do with their own body.

 

[Rhea]

Well waddya know, governments CAN tell women what they must do with their own body.

I don’t agree that thye should. I think this is a bad decision. A person should be able to refuse treatment any time they want to refuse treatment. This violates her rights - unless the parents are forcing it and the pregnant woman is asking for it. Then I’m for overriding the parents and following the pregnant woman’s wishes.

 

[phands]

Well waddya know, governments CAN tell women what they must do with their own body.

I don’t agree that thye should. I think this is a bad decision. A person should be able to refuse treatment any time they want to refuse treatment. This violates her rights - unless the parents are forcing it and the pregnant woman is asking for it. Then I’m for overriding the parents and following the pregnant woman’s wishes.

Yet again, LIRC gets the foot gun out and loses another toe. If this poor deluded woman got her way, an unborn human would have killed its mother and/or died itself.....and isn't that against the anti abortion bullcrap?

 

[Rhea]

Her body, her choice, IMHO. No one should be forced to have a medical procedure against her will, even if it saves the life of another being. Her civil rights demand that only she have that decision about her own body.

And yes, Lion was definitley being a hypocrite (get thee gone from me! I never knew you, hypocrite!) in his snarky comment suggesting they shouldn’t.

Moreover, he was being foolish thinking that those for bodily autonomy would be against it and making a blanket statement presuming to know our opinions on it. Logic would have warned him that most of us that are for bodily autonomy are always for bodily autonomy because anything else violates civil rights.

But, he allowed his short-sighted assumption to lull him into a hypocritical and unfactual snark. Tsk tsk.

 

[Juma]

Well waddya know, governments CAN tell women what they must do with their own body.

I don’t agree that thye should. I think this is a bad decision. A person should be able to refuse treatment any time they want to refuse treatment. This violates her rights - unless the parents are forcing it and the pregnant woman is asking for it. Then I’m for overriding the parents and following the pregnant woman’s wishes.

So if a pregnat girl believes she can fly, and goes to jump from a bridge, you wouldnt do anything to stop her?

 

[Rhea]

Refusing to force her is not equal to doing nothing to stop her. Obviously.

You are saying stopping someone from jumping off a bridge is a medical procedure being forced on her?
I would try to find out what her concern is and see if we could solve her concern. Because jumping from a bridge is usually an attempt to “solve” something that doesn’t need that solution.

If, however, someone was jumping fro a bridge because they has an incurable condition that would result in a painful suffering... well, I’d wish they had a less messy and painful solution available, but I would be opposed to considering what they are doing a crime.

 

[Juma]

Refusing to force her is not equal to doing nothing to stop her. Obviously.

You are saying stopping someone from jumping off a bridge is a medical procedure being forced on her?
I would try to find out what her concern is and see if we could solve her concern. Because jumping from a bridge is usually an attempt to “solve” something that doesn’t need that solution.

If, however, someone was jumping fro a bridge because they has an incurable condition that would result in a painful suffering... well, I’d wish they had a less messy and painful solution available, but I would be opposed to considering what they are doing a crime.

Ok, my example had distracting connotations. But if you ignore the suicidal flavour of it and concentrate on the core problem here: preventing someone from losing your life because an obvious delusion.

 

[Rhea]

Ok, my example had distracting connotations. But if you ignore the suicidal flavour of it and concentrate on the core problem here: preventing someone from losing your life because an obvious delusion.

I subscribe to the belief that your body is your own, all the time.

For some people the delusions they suffer are a painful and exhausting life that they can no longer maintain. While I may try to talk them out of it if I can help in some way and especially if I feel their delusion is temporary or treatable, I strongly believe it is wrong to write laws to force their body to obey my feelings.

Take the person who is diagnosed with Alzheimers, and wants, before they become incapacitated, to arrange a dignified end to their life so they they do not have to suffer the cruel ravages of this disease. Knowing that their delusions will become worse, and for some people represent a daily terror. If I were to go to my elderly neighbors house and scare her several times a day every day for years, I would be a monster.. This disease, is a monster. How cruel for me to insist that she face it and live it instead of making a decision to not live that way.

That said, based on the kind people I know in the emergency medical profession, I would advise that you get in the tub with a toaster instead of jumping off a bridge, plz.

 

[Juma]

Ok, my example had distracting connotations. But if you ignore the suicidal flavour of it and concentrate on the core problem here: preventing someone from losing your life because an obvious delusion.

I subscribe to the belief that your body is your own, all the time.

For some people the delusions they suffer are a painful and exhausting life that they can no longer maintain. While I may try to talk them out of it if I can help in some way and especially if I feel their delusion is temporary or treatable, I strongly believe it is wrong to write laws to force their body to obey my feelings.

Take the person who is diagnosed with Alzheimers, and wants, before they become incapacitated, to arrange a dignified end to their life so they they do not have to suffer the cruel ravages of this disease. Knowing that their delusions will become worse, and for some people represent a daily terror. If I were to go to my elderly neighbors house and scare her several times a day every day for years, I would be a monster.. This disease, is a monster. How cruel for me to insist that she face it and live it instead of making a decision to not live that way.

That said, based on the kind people I know in the emergency medical profession, I would advise that you get in the tub with a toaster instead of jumping off a bridge, plz.

It seems to me you didnt get the gist of my example at all.
It is not about keeping people alive against their will. It is about not letting people kill themselves because they have been fooled.

 

[bilby]

Her body, her choice, IMHO. No one should be forced to have a medical procedure against her will, even if it saves the life of another being. Her civil rights demand that only she have that decision about her own body.

And yes, Lion was definitley being a hypocrite (get thee gone from me! I never knew you, hypocrite!) in his snarky comment suggesting they shouldn’t.

Moreover, he was being foolish thinking that those for bodily autonomy would be against it and making a blanket statement presuming to know our opinions on it. Logic would have warned him that most of us that are for bodily autonomy are always for bodily autonomy because anything else violates civil rights.

But, he allowed his short-sighted assumption to lull him into a hypocritical and unfactual snark. Tsk tsk.

I think the patient's age is the issue. As she is under 18, she isn't legally able to make the decision herself; Her parents have made a decision that is (according to the court) contrary to her interests, and so the court has overruled their guardianship decision.

An adult JW has the right to make whatever dumb and self-destructive decisions they like. But between the age of 16 and 18, the law allows women to consent to sex, but doesn't allow them to demand the withholding of lifesaving medical treatment. (It also allows marriage at that age only with the consent of the court - so presumably the courts have already made at least that important decision on her behalf, assuming that JWs frown on sex outside wedlock).

It's an oddity of the law caused by having more than one defined age of legal responsibility, each of which applies in a different context.

 

[Rhea]

For some people the delusions they suffer are a painful and exhausting life that they can no longer maintain. While I may try to talk them out of it if I can help in some way and especially if I feel their delusion is temporary or treatable, I strongly believe it is wrong to write laws to force their body to obey my feelings.

.

It seems to me you didnt get the gist of my example at all.
It is not about keeping people alive against their will. It is about not letting people kill themselves because they have been fooled.

How do we tell the difference? I did get your example, I just didn't rush to the conclusion that she was deluded and I was not.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the patient's age is the issue. As she is under 18, she isn't legally able to make the decision herself; Her parents have made a decision that is (according to the court) contrary to her interests, and so the court has overruled their guardianship decision.

An adult JW has the right to make whatever dumb and self-destructive decisions they like. But between the age of 16 and 18, the law allows women to consent to sex, but doesn't allow them to demand the withholding of lifesaving medical treatment. (It also allows marriage at that age only with the consent of the court - so presumably the courts have already made at least that important decision on her behalf, assuming that JWs frown on sex outside wedlock).

It's an oddity of the law caused by having more than one defined age of legal responsibility, each of which applies in a different context.

Understand. In AMerica there are cases where she can make her own decisions. For example decision regarding pregnancy I do not have a right to force my will upon my daughter, and all of my kids have the right to keep their medical records private from me once they turn 13.

 

[southernhybrid]

Unless, I missed something by reading too fast, the linked article didn't say if the girl actually needed the blood transfusion, did it? I know that JWs will accept plasma expanders and I've known of one case where the plasma expanders were enough to keep the individual JW from dying of hypovolemia. Was the girl offered the option of receiving plasma expanders? It never mentions this in the link.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472029906004528

Plasma expanders are used to restore the circulating volume of a hypovolaemic patient. Typically, colloids are used to expand the plasma volume, although combinations of hypertonic crystalloid and colloid have recently been used. The currently available colloids vary in their physico-chemical, pharmaco-dynamic and pharmaco-kinetic properties. In particular, they differ in molecular weight, which partly determines their duration of action, and in their ability to expand the plasma volume. Dextran, hydroxyethyl starch and hypertonic colloid solutions improve oxygen flux within the microcirculation. Despite their benefits, the use of dextran and high molecular weight starches is limited by their negative impact on coagulation. In addition, these macro-molecules may also induce acute renal failure in susceptible patients. Current research focuses on the development of artificial oxygen-carriers as plasma expanders. These substances, which include modified stromal-free haemoglobin and perfluorocarbon emulsions, are undergoing clinical trials.

So, plasma expanders are not without risks, but blood transfusions have risks as well. Some people have terrible reactions to blood transfusions. I hate articles that don't give the complete picture, which is often the case when a non medical source makes a point about a medical issue. I do think that an individual has the right to refuse any medical procedure as long as the individual has been told the risks. I don't think that parents should be able to refuse life saving treatment for their children, but this girl is 17, so at least in the US, she would would likely be considered old enough to make the decision for herself. It's not just religious folks that make risky decisions concerning their health. I've known atheists that refused to take medication for their BP, for example. Should they be forced to take what might eventually be a life saving drug? I value the autonomy of the individual over what the medical professional wants, so I guess I agree with Rhea when it comes right down to it.