your performing a surgery on a jehovah's witness woman ans refused blood tranfusion. you promise her that there will be no blood transfusion during the surgery. then came the surgery and the woman is in nedd of blood transfusion. you went on and administer blood transfusion and broke you promise. nobody knows what you did expect for you and the other "operation crew" at that time.
you saved the life of the woman but in means of law, are you required to tell her what you did knowing that she will be upset because she did REFUSED blood transfusion before the surgery?
regarding the law, are you allowed to not tell the person what went on during the surgery?
are you breaking some laws if you do something like that?i mean not tell the patient what happened.
2007-03-04 13:36:42 · 8 answers · asked by aLeX 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Surgeons are not above the law, and a surgeon is not entitled to do as he pleases with a patient's body.
When a physician performs a procedure which he knows a patient to have prohibited, the physician is guilty of assault and battery in most jurisdictions in the United States. In addition, MOST (if not all) Jehovah's Witnesses who had been so victimized would press charges, and pursue a civil judgment.
It is almost always a gross distortion of the facts to describe a forced blood transfusion as "saving a life". Statistics plainly show that MANY MULTIPLES more die as a direct result of a blood transfusion than from a conscientious decision to pursue non-blood medical management.
2007-03-04 15:17:39 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How will you explain it later, if she turns up with a disease related to blood transfusions. Also, what kind of post surgical treatment did she get without the knowledge that she received a blood transfusion? 100% of people who get a transfusion have an immunal deficiency response. Transfusions lower the immune system, which is why it use to be used in shutting down the immune system for transplants.
What if she turns up with an out of control, and previously undiagnosed, cancer that when wild after her immune system was affected by the transfusion? A local man, who owned several popular bars, had to have a transfusion for minor surgery, two months ago. It turned out he had an undiagnosed case of pancreatic cancer, which his body apparently had been keeping in check for a while. The transfusion lowered his immunal response, and the cancer took hold. He was dead in three weeks.
Not telling her leaves you in a lot worse position if something comes of it later.
I was in this position in 1999, except I was awake during the surgery, so I got to argue my case while on the table. I didn't get any.
2007-03-04 16:42:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
oh. oh, man,,,, what was done in the first place was to break the
rule of doctor / patient relationship, meaning when the patient stated their belief and was not respected and the surgical staff ignored said belief of the patient and did what they deemed in the best interest of the patient instead of following her/his wishes,
if you have any sense of ethics concerning the this issue, this should be disclosed to the patient and let him/her handle it.
this sort of thing is not right even at the time it may seem so,but if you know beforehand what the wishes are and you go against them, then the surgeon is wide open for litigation.the patient should always know what is going on.
2007-03-04 14:23:08 · answer #3 · answered by barrbou214 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the position become God? the position become Santa? the position become Brahman? As harsh because it ought to sound, all prayers bypass unheard. With the demise of someone all of us understand can come distinct the most heart-wrenching, crushing thoughts that anybody can ever journey. a really painful journey. a really human journey. considering guy had the potential to reveal companionship and comradeship, it has also been confronted with the affliction of loss and heartbreak. via our species' lifetime, over 20 billion people have died, and with each and each demise comes the inevitable empty void of a loved one's heart. although its arrival gained't seem as prompt as its predecessor, following heartbreak finally comes recognition and a peace of ideas. After having dealt with demise so usually in our historic previous, we as a people have discovered to get decrease back up, dirt ourselves off, and get decrease back on to living our own lives. And so will you.
2016-11-27 21:58:39 · answer #4 · answered by schaner 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that the surgeon actually broke the law by doing something that was against her wishes. I'm not sure on the ethics part of the law, but I think that the surgeon should have told her what he/she did. Sorry, I don't have facts for you.
2007-03-04 13:45:51 · answer #5 · answered by Tracy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Just because the patient will become upset is not a reason to not tell her. The problem is not law, it is ethics.
2007-03-04 13:46:47 · answer #6 · answered by Old guy 124 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
YES The Doctor has a Duty to tell the patient ALL pertinent details. He need only tell her family if she instructs him to or id the patient is a minor,
2007-03-04 16:11:13 · answer #7 · answered by Ish Var Lan Salinger 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would say they were in violation of law.
2007-03-04 13:51:59 · answer #8 · answered by cricket 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋