h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wilma was, by the reading of it. And an individual opting out affects the whole group not just the individual.

Pardon, Arnie? Wilma was what?

W

sorry to change the subject but I'd like to pick up on one of the previous points about treating a child against the express wishes of the parents.

I often hear how people would like to intervene when they see, say, a child have a tantrum and a harased mother shout at them or give them a wee smack on the hand. I never see those people wanting to actually help the mother and point out to the child that they are behaving badly (who knows why they got to that point?). But it's ok to force them to vaccinate or have a blood transfusion.

Children are always communal children until the difficult messy bits start.

However, to a certain degree I believe that a child should be allowed to grow up and make their own decisions. Which is why I don't particularly like any religion that you can't leave "because you were born into it"

If this woman had been anything other than a Jehova's Witness I think her treatment might have been different. And that is what deeply disturbs me.

although, if deeply religious people _are_ delusional, perhaps we can get the Pope locked away...

"perhaps we can get the Pope locked away..."

Oooh, yes please!!!










*ahem*

heh heh heh

I've been looking for an excuse...

Just to remark that the removed post 14 was an attempt to comply with turvey's request in post 2. It was failed for copyright reasons, as I suspected it might be.

I'll try again, this time sumarising the article by recasting it into my own words, instead of by quoting chunks of it.

Following this conversation with interest, but have nothing informative to contribute, except that this lady's objections were almost certainly religious, not medical, in nature, and that there's been outcry in the Irish media. Various legal and human rights groups are not happy.

TRiG.

Possibly if someone really has a serious objection to something medically being done to them, if they can explicitly explain that objection in advance to the medical team *and get them to agree to go along with it* I might actually support their reaction if the medics had gone back on their word.
However, I'd also support the medics saying "If that's what you want, go and get treated somewhere else". If people thought they could not in honesty stand back and watch someone needlessly die, they would seem to me to have *some* kind of a right to have nothing to do with treating the patient in any way that might bring on the need for the objected-to treatment.
Telling a surgeon "You can do a Caesarian, but if there's any excess blood loss, we won't be doing a transfusion." seems basically like saying "You can operate, but only with your left hand whilst standing on one leg". If they (or the rest of the theatre staff) don't want to play that game, I'd fully understand.

I can't help imagining a situation where there is an administrative cock up, and an ashen-faced surgeon takes an anxious relative on one side and says "I'm afraid we made a terrible mistake, and as a result, your spouse is alive and well. I'm so sorry. Do you want to sue us now, or later?"

<>

I am reminded of a situation that was reported in about 2003, a woman was being prosecuted for removing her son from hospital, where he had been having chemo for a tumour on his leg.
It turned out (the local paper had a front page story about it) that TV had misreported the story. The boy was 13, not under five, and the giving up of chemo was his choice - not for religious reasons (though they were a religious family) but because he was simply sick and tired of it all!
In fact, the mother *wanted* him to continue chemo, and because he was 13, doctors became heavy handed and insisted someone be prosecuted!
Utterly pointlessly. The charges against the parents were dropped, because they didn't oppose treatment, the boy was angry, and died soon after, which apparently was inevitable - but his last weeks were relatively peaceful, as he didn't have to suffer the misery and nausea of chemo.

It sounds like you need a better TV news service.

I'd say we all do, potholer...

>>"I am reminded of a situation that was reported in about 2003, a woman was being prosecuted for removing her son from hospital, where he had been having chemo for a tumour on his leg.
It turned out (the local paper had a front page story about it) that TV had misreported the story. The boy was 13, not under five, and the giving up of chemo was his choice - not for religious reasons (though they were a religious family) but because he was simply sick and tired of it all!
In fact, the mother *wanted* him to continue chemo, and because he was 13, doctors became heavy handed and insisted someone be prosecuted!
Utterly pointlessly. The charges against the parents were dropped, because they didn't oppose treatment, the boy was angry, and died soon after, which apparently was inevitable - but his last weeks were relatively peaceful, as he didn't have to suffer the misery and nausea of chemo."

DA, your memory is very different from what I seem to be able to find out, unless there were two very similar cases involving potential legal wrangling over a teenager with a leg tumour:

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=12826&sec=76&cont=4
>>"Tovia Laufau: The 13-year-old Mangere boy died from a cancerous tumour on his leg which weighed 15kg and had spread to his lungs. Despite warnings that the cancer would kill him, his parents, Peni and Faafetai Laufau, refused medical help. They said Tovia was too scared to return to hospital and was old enough to make his own decision. A High Court jury disagreed. In August 2000 it found the parents not guilty of manslaughter but guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life. They later received a 15-month suspended prison sentence. Starship Hospital admitted in court that it did not try to get a court order to take Tovia from his parents. Doctors said they did not want to alienate the family and were worried after the public fallout from the Liam Williams-Holloway case."

In *that* case, it seemed the hospital was reluctant to act even though it seems maybe they should have done.

The 'under 5-year-old boy' was possibly Liam Williams-Holloway, a preceding case, the reaction to which may have affected the hospital's decision in the Lafau case.

More comment on:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s749648.htm

<

No question we do!

Going back to the original case, I think the issue is whether or not the law deems such cards as she carried as having legal authority. It's similar to the matter of carrying a donor card which states intention but has no legal enforcement, particularly if next of kin have opposing views.
I'd prefer in general that the patient's wishes outweigh those of next of kin, so I've no problem with the husband being denied inclusion in the case in question. The given motive, of keeping the mother alive to care for the baby also seems inappropriate to me. I suspect that if I'd been in the doctor's shoes, I'd have preferred to risk the consequences of treating her against her wishes rather than risk being reprimanded for (presumably) letting her die.

Perhaps if we do go down the road of having smart medical cards that we carry around, this could include patient's wishes such as being a donor, refusing transfusions etc. which would have legal standing.

>>"The given motive, of keeping the mother alive to care for the baby also seems inappropriate to me."

I'd agree with that. I'd be more tempted to factor in the existence of the baby when considering how rational the parent's choice to refuse treatment is, ("How likely is it for someone in their right mind to want to seriously risk death afetr having a baby?") rather than taking a line that the parent should live for the baby's benefit.

That's true, that someone who is ill, especially from serious blood loss, is very likely to be unable to think coherently. Thus even more important to have preferences legally established in advance. The difficulty with that is that of course sometimes people change their minds when the situation arises.

What about people who refuse treatment for infectious diseases ? I'm thinking of TB particularly here, which is growing because infected people don't keep up their medication.

It certainly seems OK to quarantine people at risk of spreading a serious disease lile drug-resistant TB, or who seem likely to behave in a way (not taking medication consistently) that could result in more drug-resistant TB being around.

Having the acceptance of treatment as a condition for being allowed in society seems reasonable.
It presumably then comes to a choice between enforced indefinite quarantine, supwervised or enforced treatment, someone finding another country happy to take them, or someone volunatrily quarantining themselves until they die, with their visitors monitored in case they end up infected.

If someone didn't have anywhere else to go, and had a huge moral objection to antibiotics, they're going to need quarantining one way or another. I don't think it's fair to expect the state to finance potential decades of quarantine, so that would leave the only option some privately-financed quarantine, which seems unlikely to be particularly practical.