retired_sedimohasel

I'm not sure how the text translates in English but in France we have a law that is called "non-assistance a personne en danger" which basically mean that you purposedly failed to help someone that was in obvious danger. For that you can get up to 5 years in jail. Wouldn't the doctor not giving the mother a transfusion be considered as failling to assist an endangered person?

retired_sedimohasel

When exactly in a Doctor's eyes (he's the one judging here) is death better than life when the patient can clearly be saved and fully recover?

retired_berrysale

When exactly in a Doctor's eyes (he's the one judging here) is death better than life when the patient can clearly be saved and fully recover? </BLOCKQUOTE>

That is for the doctor to decide.

retired_sedimohasel

When exactly in a Doctor's eyes (he's the one judging here) is death better than life when the patient can clearly be saved and fully recover? </BLOCKQUOTE>

That is for the doctor to decide. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Any example you can think of?

retired_berrysale

1) it's a leading question

2) It's not my job to decide what a doctor can do.

The doctor must accept the wishes of the patient regarding treatment - even if the patient refuses (when legally of sound mind) to accept treatment.

retired_sedimohasel

No the doctors don't have to accept the wishes of the patient. Where did you see that? If that was the case euthanasia would be mandatory for doctors.

On the other hand they do have to put the patient's best as the highest priority (see previous posts) and judging by your lack of counter example I will conclude that life is better than death so the doctor must try to the best of his ability/knowledge to save the patient.

retired_berrysale

That's your opinion.

There are occasions when the law (such as the anti-euthanasia laws) takes precedence.

Otherwise, the doctors do have to accept the decision of the patient. If the patient (of legally sound mind) refuses to accept treatment, the doctor has to accept it.

It is still a leading question. The patient may suffer great psychological damage when given treatment when it is against his wishes. The patient may fully recover physically but not mentally due to receiving something that the patient did not wish to have. The chances are, however, if the patient received treatment he does not want, he will not achieve a full recovery. Emotionally, he may feel very bad and therefore may not follow the exercises or recovery regime properly. Thus, your argument of a full recovery in that situation would be invalid.

retired_sedimohasel

How about the law that states that, whether you are a doctor or not, you have to help someone who's in danger, shouldn't this take precedent over the right an individual has to not want to be cured? This is basically a case of euthanasia since in most cases (at least those I read) the doctor who "kills" a patient rarely uses some subtance to kill his patient but rather stops giving him something that was keeping him alive. Much like the transfusion vs non-transfusion issue here.

Why shouldn't the euthanasia law apply here since the doctors knew that not giving this women a transfusion would be fatal, it's the same as "umplugging" someone imo.

It is still a leading question. The patient may suffer great psychological damage when given treatment when it is against his wishes. The patient may fully recover physically but not mentally due to receiving something that the patient did not wish to have. The chances are, however, if the patient received treatment he does not want, he will not achieve a full recovery. Emotionally, he may feel very bad and therefore may not follow the exercises or recovery regime properly. Thus, your argument of a full recovery in that situation would be invalid. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Doctors are supposed to fight for the better of the patient, if a patient is emotionally hurt because he got cured it is still better than not getting cured and that's not my opinion that's both common sense and the law since the law states that a doctor has the obligation to try to save a life to the best of his ability/knowledge hence the law places life (even with injuries or emotional wounds) above death.

retired_berrysale

It's a sophistic argument in regards to the recent case. There's no such law in the UK.

"unplugging" someone is not the same as putting a substance in the body that is not wanted by the patient.

If the patient does not want that specific treatment, it his right under european law to refuse it.

The hippocratic oath is for doctors, not surgeons.

retired_khabmth

Well done for (again) just stating the law, it isn't very useful though. There is very little confusion here as to how the law looks today, what we are discussing though is our opinion of it and how it should be changed.



But surely even a limited recovery (due to some mental discomfort) has to be better than death, or?