If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
surely there has to be a ruling, where as, if they can do something to help save the patient, and the patient refuses help due to the religion thing, can they not take legal action and do the transfusion anyway?
Originally posted by Dougs:
surely there has to be a ruling, where as, if they can do something to help save the patient, and the patient refuses help due to the religion thing, can they not take legal action and do the transfusion anyway?
Well, obviously not.
Are you really advocating people being given medical treatment against their will?
Originally posted by msteuk:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Dougs:
surely there has to be a ruling, where as, if they can do something to help save the patient, and the patient refuses help due to the religion thing, can they not take legal action and do the transfusion anyway?
Well, obviously not.
Are you really advocating people being given medical treatment against their will? </BLOCKQUOTE>
well i'm obviously in the minority then who tought that this
i wonder if her husband still thinks its a good religion, now that his wife died due to the beleifs (if she is indeed married, i never read the article)
Originally posted by Helarxe:
This news is so sad - after all, it's still a net increase of +1 Jehova's Witness in the world. :***(
Doubt it when the religion is the reason she's dead. Can't see the kids reacting all that well to it. Even if they take RH's point and accept she died for her beliefs, I'd imagine they would want to ensure that their own kids grew up with their mother around them.
(if she is indeed married, i never read the article)
Linear Mode
