retired_heidus17

precisely my point. it's like that john cleese sketch with the woman crying "what should i do? what should i do?" in panic during labour, to which cleese replies "nothing! you're not qualified!".

know you're playing devils advocate here - just not really seeing why tbh... </BLOCKQUOTE>

my point is (and this goes to Meitheisman man too) is that she has decided her beliefs are more important than what is medically best. It's no longer really about medical advice at all, the law is there to stop people recieving bad medical advice, not to stop people being able to make decicions based on the advice they recieved. if you are saying she is giving medical advice to herself, that would stop everybody being able to go against what the doctor says is best, no?

retired_kris10nicole

If the child decided not to have a transfusion and the parents accepted that wish, then they have every right to refuse a transfusion. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what he means is if a baby needed a transfusion to survive but the parents objected on religious grounds. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd question it for an older child than a baby. The fact that a child is old enough to vocalize doesn't mean it's old enough to make a life or death decision, especially one where there would be a real chance that it was based on the teachings/indoctrination* of the parents in the first place.


*delete as applicable depending which side of the debate you're on

retired_musiclova31

currently, the law is in favour of the parents. if the child is a minor, they have the right to refuse treatment on the childs behalf.

retired_kris10nicole

precisely my point. it's like that john cleese sketch with the woman crying "what should i do? what should i do?" in panic during labour, to which cleese replies "nothing! you're not qualified!".

know you're playing devils advocate here - just not really seeing why tbh... </BLOCKQUOTE>

my point is (and this goes to Meitheisman man too) is that she has decided her beliefs are more important than what is medically best. It's no longer really about medical advice at all, the law is there to stop people recieving bad medical advice, not to stop people being able to make decicions based on the advice they recieved. if you are saying she is giving medical advice to herself, that would stop everybody being able to go against what the doctor says is best, no? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot on. She's taking advice from her religion that says she'll get better without the transfusion through the power of god, she's saying she knows and accepts the risks of not having the transfusion.

retired_musiclova31

which brings me back to my very first post - is she exercising her 'freedom of choice' when it's possible she's been indoctrinated with this belief her entire life?

retired_Monica65

Just because something is the law doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

retired_kris10nicole

currently, the law is in favour of the parents. if the child is a minor, they have the right to refuse treatment on the childs behalf. </BLOCKQUOTE>

It's certainly not that clear cut in Britain, given the fairly recent high profile cases of doctors taking the case to the high court where the parents have requested DNR's for terminally ill and/or suffering children.

retired_sedimohasel

Aren't religious people by definition the opposite of "sound minds" since they obey beliefs over facts?

retired_musiclova31

same all round the (western) world mark. but afaik, those rulings are applicable to individual cases - none of them have actually been challenges to the law itself.

although I could stand to be corrected on that (in fact, i'd really, really like to be).

retired_kimmymarlo

Aren't religious people by definition the opposite of "sound minds" since they obey beliefs over facts? </BLOCKQUOTE>SIGH