If a person trys to commit suicide and and fails.. and the person trys to refuse treatment...but the right was waived when they decided to take their life...so the mecial team can do what ever means neccessary to make sure the person lives...even if the person is alert and trys to refuse treatment they no longer have that right....
TRUE OR FALSE...and why...I will give the answer when i pick the best answer....
2006-10-24 15:40:57 · 20 answers · asked by coopchic 5 in Health ➔ Mental Health
If a patient is in an altered mental state, consent is implied even if they state they do not want to be treated. Attempting suicide would be considered indicative of an altered mental state, so medical personal can treat the patient without her consent.
2006-10-24 15:48:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
False.
This depends very much upon which state (or country) the person is in.
In general, a person can always refuse treatment. Attempting to commit suicide does NOT waive that right.
It is possible for the hospital (i.e., the "state") to attempt to keep you in the hospital. However, in most situations, they cannot force you to stay. Suicide or not.
It is only possible to force someone into medical surveillance (not necessarily treatment) if the court decrees it. This is not a simple matter.
As long as someone is mentally competant, they may refuse treatment. Committing suicide (or trying to) does NOT make someone metally incompetant - at least not in all 50 states.
2006-10-24 15:54:57 · answer #2 · answered by Elizabeth S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My personal experience with this issue is that, in Pennsylvania at least, if you attempt suicide, and are unsuccessful, and are brought to a hospital at that time, you may be "302'd". This, if memory serves, is the process by which one can be held for a period of observation. During that period, it is permissible for the staff at the hospital to intervene if the patient tries to repeat self-destruction. However, I do not think this permanently prevents a person from having a living will in the event of grave illness.
That being said, if someone continues to be a risk to themselves or others while under observation, the decision may be made to commit that person for a longer period. If involuntarily committed, I believe, it is almost certain any attempts at suicide would be stopped if possible. The bottom line is you can only successfully kill yourself once. If you fail, you will have consequences, and perhaps failure is indicative of the desire to live.
2006-10-24 15:54:11 · answer #3 · answered by shapsjo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont think they can my friend tried "to commit sucide" by taking tylenol (yeah I know) and she couldnt refuse anything she had to stay at the hospital for 72 hrs and she had to go to there meetings everyday and she had to go to one on one counseling and it has been a yr later and I think she still has to go to counseling and all she was trying to do was get attention so I can imagine for someone who had done damage
but then what kind of treatment legally they can say no to blood and stuff like that but as far as the other treatment I would say no because they cant check out the hospital until they meet all the requirements they are even strick with visitation and phone calls
2006-10-24 15:55:07 · answer #4 · answered by J 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
True.
If a person makes an attempt to take their life or even a threat. They lose the right to make their own decision about their life.
It is not only a Law, it's just whats right. A person in that state has no right making ANY decisions.
They are not only at risk for themselves but there is no true way to know how serious they are, there-for leaving an immediate response by professionals to take over for EVERY-ONES safety.
T
2006-10-24 15:48:20 · answer #5 · answered by ~*bUtteRFy~*~kISSeS*~ 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Jehovah's Witnesses eat chicken soup, don't they? Isn't that a violation of the injunction to abstain from blood? Isn't there blood in the broth, whether it is 'cooked' or not? Or do they 'kosher' the chickens before they boil them? C'mon, get real! If they're going to follow one rule religiously, why not follow ALL of them... Abstain from things 'strangled'...blood deprivation would certainly seem to be a form of 'strangulation'. It operates the same: oxygen deprivation! The original blood abstention law is found in Genesis, and it forbids the eating of live animals, and the eating of living blood. Blood transfusions are not involved in the eating process, nor in digestion. The OT defines 'blood' for us very clearly: LIFE! The bible speaks about the eating of living creatures, while they're ALIVE, not the eating of flesh. We are simply given an injunction to humanely KILL whatever we eat, before we eat it. Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. The blood is shed for the atonement of the soul, and this can be interpreted as a medicinal procedure. Chicken soup is well-known for it's healing effect on flu and colds, although just how it operates is unknown. And soup is not the only thing. How much blood is shed killing innocent sheep, to manufacture insulin just to keep a person alive another day? And liver, a blood-organ: in older times, eating liver was a LIFE-SAVER! Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Upon the altar? Where the animals were cooked? Of course! Today, we know about iron, B vitamins, A vitamins, K vitamins, etc.... and we know what horrrible diseases result from NOT getting adequate quantities of these nutrients. Why is a transfusion any different, when today's blood is tested extensively and monitored scrupulously??? While were on the subject of James, there is such a thing called the 'sin of omission': Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. I don't know about you, but I have donated blood, if, for no other reason, that I would be really glad if I ever needed any, and someone had done the same for me. I have never needed any, but I would not hesitate to recieve 'LIFE'!
2016-05-22 11:57:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Trying to commit suicide is illegal. If one chooses to ignore the Judges ruling when he orders treatment is illegal. That person would have done better succeeding than to refuse treatment. He might just in up in jail or some mental institution, you just can't do that...
2006-10-24 15:48:00 · answer #7 · answered by BadBill 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
True. The reason is that the act of attempting to commit suicide renders them mentally unstable, a threat to them selves. This requires that they surrender their right to make decisions regarding what happens to them to the medical field. This is probably something most people who attempt suicide for attention do not think about - they forfeit their rights to freedom. Of course that is better than attempting suicide for attention, and inadvertently doing it successfully.
2006-10-24 16:01:11 · answer #8 · answered by Bankrupt 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ive seen this happen..in the case i saw..they are taken into proper treatment..they no longer have the right to dismiss themselves from the place of treatment ..and often times even the family can't get them out until the staff feels the person is mentally stable enough
2006-10-24 15:47:55 · answer #9 · answered by Sir_caterpillar 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In most states an attempted suicide can be admitted involuntarily for evaluation for up to 72 hours.
2006-10-24 15:44:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋