Ethical Question #2

[Cerb3rus]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Maybe talking about this will help prep you for interviews🙂

Does a parent have the right to refuse life saving treatment for their children on religious grounds? Should a Jehovas Witness parent be able to refuse a necesarry blood transfusion for their children? Is this the parents choice, the childs choice, or societies choice?

 

[gizmoduck]

They can refuse it all they want but in my opinion an arrest warrant for murder should be waiting for them as they leave the hospital.

Dang, I need good answers instead of my hot-headed Oklahoma self-righteousness. God bless America the South shall rise again!

 

[hnbui]

My honest opinion.

I do not believe that a parent, where it goes against their believes or no, has the right to refuse life saving medical care for their child.

 

[ZOT! ZOT!]

Maybe talking about this will help prep you for interviews🙂

Does a parent have the right to refuse life saving treatment for their children on religious grounds? Should a Jehovas Witness parent be able to refuse a necesarry blood transfusion for their children? Is this the parents choice, the childs choice, or societies choice?

I believe there is legal precedent that a parent cannot refuse treatment on behalf of a child on religious grounds because the child him/herself is not an autonomous individual and is therefore incapable of subscribing to a religious belief. If a parent does so, they are being neglectful and endangering the well-being of the child. Their parental rights are stripped (often in an emergency court meeting) and are restored once the child has received the necessary treatment.

You and your ethical questions... 🙄

 

[Pinkertinkle]

I believe there is legal precedent that a parent cannot refuse treatment on behalf of a child on religious grounds because the child him/herself is not an autonomous individual and is therefore incapable of subscribing to a religious belief. If a parent does so, they are being neglectful and endangering the well-being of the child. Their parental rights are stripped (often in an emergency court meeting) and are restored once the child has received the necessary treatment.

You and your ethical questions... 🙄

That is correct as per that medical ethics website that was posted a while ago. I seriously doubt these questions with established answers will come up in interviews, they are the domain of medical school ethics classes.

 

[Cerb3rus]

That is correct as per that medical ethics website that was posted a while ago. I seriously doubt these questions with established answers will come up in interviews, they are the domain of medical school ethics classes.

Perhaps not but i find it interesting nonetheless. Personally, I thinkt hat the patient sacrifices autonomy to an extent when they enter the hospital for treatment. Legally the precedent was set that a patient may deny treatment but not request malpractice to be performed (i.e. not getting a blood transfusion).

So what aboutthe parent, do they have a right to refuse the treatment if they are in a hospital setting?

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Indeed, if they have the mental capacity to understand the risks, it is their choice.

 

[ambrosia]

I agree, anyone that is over 18 (i.e a legal adult) has the right to refuse medical treatment if they want to.

 

[dfleis]

.

 

[Amicus]

My honest opinion.

I do not believe that a parent, where it goes against their believes or no, has the right to refuse life saving medical care for their child.

agreed

 

[synapse lapse]

The parent cannot legally deny treatment. ZOT! is correct. As for my own opinions, I agree with him. A child is not an autonomous indivvidual and has not yet chosen to subscribe to any particular religious beliefs, and is not capable of forming an viable form of consent (tacit or explicit) due to the overbearing power of the parents, societal expectations, and psychological and intellectual limitations inherent in youth.

 

[phosphorylation]

gosh I hate that, I think they should have the parents arrested. This SH** pisses the hell out of me.

 

[rtmcad2319]

Yeah but what if God was calling that child up into heaven for a purpose and the parents were only making sure he/she got there on time?

 

[Wrigleyville]

It's one thing to put your own ass on the line for your religious beliefs, but it is something else entirely for you to put someone else's life at risk for your religious beliefs.

 

[synapse lapse]

Yeah but what if God was calling that child up into heaven for a purpose and the parents were only making sure he/she got there on time?

You've got to be kidding. The child does not have the intellectual capacity to seriously consider a philosophy to follow in life. The parent has no right to deny right of life to a child who may not even agree with their beliefs. If I say that it is my religious belief that women should be denied medical treatment because of some religious custom, will this be allowed as well. Simply because some religions are more popular than others gives them no right to excercise hegemony over others. The child has a right to pick his own philosophical beliefs, and it is not humane to allow said child to die because of a choice he cannot legitimately make. Consent in this case is not viable, I would be glad to argue mroe over it, but I know with a dogmatist it will be useless.

 

[no-see-um]

I agree, anyone that is over 18 (i.e a legal adult) has the right to refuse medical treatment if they want to.

Yeah, tell that to a patient with a communicable disease. Also to the one who posted "the answer" according to the law, that is not what the study of ethics is about. The question is ought this to be considered ethical?

 

[rtmcad2319]

You've got to be kidding. The child does not have the intellectual capacity to seriously consider a philosophy to follow in life. The parent has no right to deny right of life to a child who may not even agree with their beliefs. If I say that it is my religious belief that women should be denied medical treatment because of some religious custom, will this be allowed as well. Simply because some religions are more popular than others gives them no right to excercise hegemony over others. The child has a right to pick his own philosophical beliefs, and it is not humane to allow said child to die because of a choice he cannot legitimately make. Consent in this case is not viable, I would be glad to argue mroe over it, but I know with a dogmatist it will be useless.

Hook, line, and sink!

 

[Medikit]

You must convert them:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0026/0026_1.htm

And in Spanish:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0505/0505_01.asp

 

[!dr_nick!]

You must convert them:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0026/0026_1.htm

And in Spanish:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0505/0505_01.asp

Ah chick tracts... yay... according to him ive already sworn and oath against jesus and am a sorcerer because im a freemason.

Oh and, the dungeons and dragons one is PRICELESS. YOU MUST READ IT NOW. That is if you are familiar with D&D or any other rpg. Not that any of you out there are dorky enough to have ever played.

 

[lilgecko]

That is correct as per that medical ethics website that was posted a while ago. I seriously doubt these questions with established answers will come up in interviews, they are the domain of medical school ethics classes.

I was asked the OP's Jehova's Witness blood tranfusion question at my University of Cincinnati interview.

 

[SarahGM]

University of Washington says this:

http://eduserv.hscer.washington.edu/bioethics/topics/cross.html

and

http://eduserv.hscer.washington.edu/bioethics/topics/parent.html


When can parental authority to make medical decisions for their children be challenged?
Medical caretakers have an ethical and legal duty to advocate for the best interests of the child when parental decisions are potentially dangerous to the child's health, imprudent, neglectful, or abusive. When satisfactory resolution cannot be attained through respectful discussion and ethics consultation, seeking a court order for appropriate care might be necessary.


Can parents refuse to provide their children with necessary medical treatment on the basis of their beliefs?
Parents have legal and moral authority to make health care decisions for their children, as long as those decisions do not pose a serious threat to the child's physical well-being. Parents should not be permitted to deny their children medical care when that medical care is likely to prevent substantial harm or suffering. If necessary, the physician may need to pursue a court order in order to provide treatment against the wishes of the parents. Nevertheless, the physician must always take care to show respect for the family's beliefs and a willingness to discuss reasonable alternatives with the family.

 

[ZOT! ZOT!]

Yeah, tell that to a patient with a communicable disease. Also to the one who posted "the answer" according to the law, that is not what the study of ethics is about. The question is ought this to be considered ethical?

Philosophy major, huh? What's with you guys and the word "ought"? It makes me cringe.

P.S. That is the answer. NO!

 

[principessa]

I think if you are a mentally competent adult you should be allowed to refuse life-saving medical treatment for yourself, but not for your child. Children are different. Physicians have a responsibility to protect them, even from their parents. I think you could take this too far, though. If a parent refuses a vaccine for a child, the child's life is not in immediate danger, and there are legitimate reasons not to give certain vaccines, even if giving them is still standard protocol.

Cerb - As for patients giving up their autonomy by receiving medical treatment, I think this is a dangerous mentality. This is why so many people don't trust physicians. I think we should be fighting to protect our patients' autonomy, not discounting it.

 

[Freakingzooming]

this will be drilled into your head if you take an ethics class....

autonomy is number uno in this country. we're all autonomy freaks.

a competent patient has the right to refuse life saving treatment. patients under 18 aren't competent and thus I guess indirectly, decisions given by parents to refuse life saving treatment can be ignored.

i wonder how ethics actually turns out in application cuz as an EMT, I was trained to ignore DNR orders if a significant other or loved one wants the patient resusciated... advanced directives are even weaker than DNRs... it's really interesting to see how sides argue on each case when in the real world, it's sorta for naught.

 

[Fermata]

You must convert them:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0026/0026_1.htm

And in Spanish:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0505/0505_01.asp

LOL. How convenient.
😀